As a Christian, I am scandalized and sickened by nearly all creationist commentary on evolution. But I'm not a misanthrope, and so I find it hard to believe that so many people could be so overtly dishonest.So I proposed the term 'folk science' as a way to refer to belief-supporting statements that sound scientific but do not seek to communicate scientific truth. I have two goals in my practice of using this phrase: 1) I recognize folk science as a particular type of argumentation, and I want to be able to accurately identify it as such; and 2) I want to create space within which I can identify falsehood, and especially falsehood that seeks to mislead, without making unwarranted accusations.
Not everyone was all that excited by this. One example I used, in which Fuz Rana presents a completely inaccurate — and wholly misleading — summary of evolutionary theory, led one commenter (Henry Neufeld) to reflect as follows:
But I'm still having a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea that someone with any sort of education in biology could manage to say some of the things creationists say. For example, in the blog post you cited from RTB, there are huge areas of evidence for common descent (everything related to the genome, for example) that are simply omitted. It would seem to me that even a person who had read only the popular literature would at least be aware of such evidence.And Steve Martin of An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution, had this to say:I can understand those poorly educated in science falling for folk science — it's easier and it makes you feel better! But I have a hard time understanding how a biologist could do so.
I think there is a different level of accountability for those in leadership. We all need to take seriously the words in James 3:1. (And I’m speaking for myself here too — even if my own role is virtually insignificant in the larger debate). For those in leadership that ignore data that contradicts their teaching, I’m not sure the appeal to “folk science” cuts it. Integrity is just way too important.Some people noted that the moral and intellectual milieu within which folk science is generated is not amenable to simplistic moral analysis. But I surmise that many of my respondents back then were concerned about going soft on crime, as I put it.
Lately, as I've been describing the folk science of "junk DNA," I have run across examples of falsehood that stretch the limits of the term 'folk science,' in that they resemble what many people would refer to as 'lies.' And I started to describe these disheartening and regrettable falsehoods as 'lies,' even as 'outrageous lies.' These are descriptors that I had deliberately avoided in my earlier posts, and I'm sorry to say that I drifted into this habit rather than making a specific decision to use this more serious language.
My friend and colleague Kevin Corcoran is urging me to reconsider this practice in a St. Patrick's Day post on his blog, Holy Skin and Bone. Now would be a good time to read his post, and the intense discussion that it generated. Come on back here when you're done.
Now, I don't buy Kevin's argument about the implications of the word 'lie'; he asserts that to call a statement a 'lie' is to call the speaker a liar, and I disagree. I don't see any problem with separating the statement from the speaker, and I think many English speakers would agree. If you read that the Holocaust never happened, you're reading a lie, no matter how you end up characterizing the motivations or competence of the writer. How else could we refer to the sinful practice of "repeating lies?" Moreover, I think a lie can evolve, such that it can come to be through careless repetition (with modification), subtly transformed into a perniciously misleading statement when full-grown. In other words, I believe that a lie can exist without being traceable to a specific liar. In fact, I think it's likely that Hugh Ross' sickening fable about the "team of physicists" arose through some sort of evolutionary process, and not through a spasm of malicious dishonesty at a keyboard in Glendora, CA.But what's the difference between a lie and a falsehood? Unlike Kevin, I label a statement a 'lie' after making a judgment regarding intentionality. If a statement is being used to deceive, or was conceived to deceive, then I will judge it to be a lie, whether or not the person who most recently uttered it – or who forwarded the email in which it was found or whatever — meant to deceive. In this vein, I regularly deem the behavior of some people to be the repeating or spreading of lies, without necessarily assuming that those people are dishonest in any way.
The problem, though, is that some people (Kevin, at the least) don't see things this way at all. And if, as I suspect, Kevin speaks for others as well, then some of my readers have reached the conclusion that I believe Hugh Ross to be a malicious liar. This is not the case, and I have explicitly stated as much in previous posts on this subject. But it just won't do to have confusion regarding character judgments. I will henceforth commit myself to complete avoidance of the word 'lie' in describing folk science. If I think something is really an actual lie, I'll show it to Kevin before I write anything about it. (Seriously.)
Now let me be clear: I will continue to refer to certain examples of RTB's behavior as misconduct, and I will not hesitate to identify the promulgation of falsehood by Ross and Rana as irresponsible, indefensible, and even dishonest. I will not hesitate to question Hugh Ross' intellectual integrity, and I think he should not be considered trustworthy as long as he persists in the reckless dissemination of fabricated nonsense that serves only to direct Christians away from basic facts of biology. The fabricated fable about the "team of physicists" is deeply troubling to me, and it should be troubling to anyone who claims the name of Christ. If I knew Hugh Ross, I would urge him to do whatever is necessary to change course, and I would encourage RTB to invest in mechanisms designed to establish and maintain basic integrity. But I won't call him a liar, or refer to his falsehoods as lies, and I won't assume that he seeks only to mislead or misinform Christians.
Please provide me with some feedback, and feel free to be as critical as you can.
14 comments:
If someone is spreading things they know are not true, that is clearly a lie and can legitimately be called lies.
If someone is spreading things that that are not true or are exaggerating things that are true, that is just inaccurate.
For example, a preacher talking about a gate with respect to Jesus' comments regarding camels and needles is clearly misleading. If he knows that is not true, then he is only attempting to mislead the congregation.
If he doesn't know and someone gently tries to talk to him about it, he agrees but carries on talking in this way, then that is... well, really annoying as well as dishonest.
Creationist claims are particularly annoying because they are so circular, and directed. Some of them are so stupid that it is hard not to believe that they are set to deliberately misinform and deceive people.
On the other hand, I think Creationism offers some positives - if children do not accept pat answers and are encouraged to explore and find out things for themselves, to test evidence and weigh the reliability of people saying things to them, they will end up as much better scientists. I don't know, but am willing to bet that there are some very good scientists who were brought up in Creationist homes and were able to bring new insights to their scientific careers because they were unhindered by years of bad science in schools - which often itself is something close to criminal.
I think you are doing a good job with a difficult topic. The problem is in determining the nature of a statement and the intent of the author. Perhaps that should lead us to call statements "false" rather than "lies."
I still have a concern here, however. Remember I come at this from a different direction. I'm a Bible teacher and writer at the popular level. I try to communicate things that I study from more serious scholars. At one time I thought I could basically trust information from RtB, even where I might disagree with conclusions.
What I hear from people in the classes and seminars I offer is that they are getting their information from Christian sources, and specifically from Christian sources who claim strong scientific credentials. These same sources are directly or indirectly accusing the vast majority of the scientific community of a conspiracy to deceive. Because of the claim to be Christian and scientifically credentialed, these non-specialists accept their claims.
Hugh Ross falls into that category of trust. I can name any number of people with whom I work who will accept his statements or statements of his associates simply because of his reputation. What responsibility does that place on him? Is there a point where a qualified Christian expert (such as you, Steve), should call him on what he is doing?
It's not so much the word "lie," though I continue to have difficulty understanding how a biologist could say certain things that have been quoted here on your blog unintentionally. At a minimum they seem to me to involve negligence.
I take blog posts here, or books by Christian authors whose integrity I have no reason to doubt, and quote the counter-statements. Not being a specialist (it's not written in Greek or Hebrew!), it's hard for me to judge.
But from my non-expert's point of view, that's what makes the issue of integrity so extremely important. Integrity doesn't mean always being right, but it does mean being careful, presenting the truth as best one knows it, and acknowledging errors when they are pointed out.
As I have been on the wrong end of some very unChristlike comments, and unfortunately I've been guilty of some myself, I'm very conscious of that issue as well. If we can be very, very clear as to what is reliable and what is not without going any further than necessary in making personal accusations, that would be ideal.
I very much appreciate your efforts in this area. If you determine you've deviated from the path you set for yourself, you have also clearly demonstrated a willingness to be corrected and to acknowledge errors. All of that gives evidence of your personal and professional integrity.
To persistently assert a falsehood knowing it to be false is to lie, pure and simple. And people who do that, regardless of their intentions or credentials, are liars. Those who repeat falsehoods not knowing them to be false are merely dupes.
In my activities in Ohio defending science education at the local and state levels I mostly encounter dupes, people who credulously repeat the falsehoods generated by liars ranging from Jonathan Wells to Henry Morris. One can't blame them for the lies or deem them to be liars (at least not at first), but one can call them on their uncritical acceptance and promulgation of falsehoods.
In my talks with the folks who repeat the falsehoods, it is my dominant impression that they cling to the falsehoods in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence mainly because the falsehoods are emotionally comforting -- they comport with the religious system they want to preserve and think they will have to give up if the falsehoods are conceded to be false. They are, in a less coherent and thoughtful way, much like Kurt Wise, except that they are willing to posit a massive conspiracy or moral degeneracy on the part of "evolutionists" to explain away the counter-evidence. One local conservative Christian radio talk show host recently claimed to me that scientists defend sound science just in order to keep grant money flowing.
Some words to consider:
mendacious
mendacity
mendaciousness
I came over here from Henry's blog and while I'm not sure I have absorbed your entire post, I think I understand what you are getting at.
I work as an engineer and have experienced first hand how demonstrably false statements can come to carry truth for some people without malicious intent. If one honestly believes in a particular position, then something that may be factually false, but appears to support position, tends to become true for the reason that it supports the position, not on it's own merit.
This happens a lot when troubleshooting a problem with a test part. Pre-conceived notions of what is causing the failure tend to drive conclusions that support the precoceived notion even if those conclusions sometimes contradict sound engineering principles. I have even been guilty of this myself. I get stuck thinking that even though such and such is impossible, this must be what is happening in this case.
Taken from a third party observers point of view, my thinking would seem absurd, but I'm deep into the problem and unfortunately my preconceived notions are inhibiting good problem solving.
All that said, it's feasible to me that even reasonable well educated people can propogate an factual falsehood on the basis that they believe it to be true.
OK, I've never ever posted on a blog before (I frankly don't "get" blogging), but this one was just too juicy to pass up. I think your "folk science" term is a much better descriptor than "lies."
In my experience with creationists, they REALLY believe this stuff. You can make all the arguments about intentionality, accuracy, responsibility, etc. that you want, but at the end of the day, those arguments fall on deaf ears, because they BELIEVE their arguments are true. They really believe there's "no evidence for evolution" and that evolution is a "theory in crisis." So when I come along and contradict creationist folk science and claim that there really IS evidence for evolution, my claim is rejected.
I think a lot more people look at lying as a judgment on a person's intentionality, which is why I think you should probably stick to "folk science" if you do not wish to be misunderstood. I actually kind of like that term, and I might adopt it when speaking to general audiences (hope that's OK).
The note about the evolution of lies without a liar is very insightful, but that is a topic for another time. I believe I've ranted to you before on that subject.
From RBH: "In my talks with the folks who repeat the falsehoods, it is my dominant impression that they cling to the falsehoods in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence mainly because the falsehoods are emotionally comforting -- they comport with the religious system they want to preserve and think they will have to give up if the falsehoods are conceded to be false."
This is a very insightful comment. I'm preparing a series of lectures on the "Two Sciences Problem" facing Christian educators: Mainstream Secular Science (MSS) and Christian Folk Scinece (CFS) -- and how CFF sets our kids up for failure by (a) witholding from them the only science capable of producing real-world results and (b) conflating Truth (the Gospel) with lies (creationism).
The hallmarks of Christian Folk Science (what distinguishes it from Mainstream Secular Science) is that its primary concern is NOT to develop testable models capable of explaining the avialable data with as few unfounded assumptions as possible. MSS lets the philosophical chips fall where they may. Providing a theologically-satisfying view of nature is of no concern to MSS. Consider the Copernican principle. Quite often, science reveals a "queerer" universe that anything we could have imagined.
The primary goal of Christian Folk Science is twofold: (1) to uphold traditional exegesis, and (2) to provide a theologically satisfying portrait of nature. This is true going all the way back to Medieval science/faith controversies--which I document in my lecutre series.
CFS doesn't really have to work because it's supporters are not faced with the challenges of "getting it right" nor the consequences of "getting it wrong" -- they merely need a system that accomplishes (1) and (2) apart from any scientific utility whatsoever.
The problem facing Christian educators is which version to feed our children. Do we want them to have sucessfull careers in the natural sciences? Or do we want to sheild them from the theologically-inconvenient scientific paradigms that undergird all technological progress? And what happens when they wind up working for Exxon and realize that "YEC-ism" and "Flood Geoloy" are powerless to make testable predictions (where to drill for oil), but old-earth geology and the evolution of microfossils (micropaleontology) works almost every time? The examples here are endless. Will they throw out their entire Christian upbringing and start over? Will they question everything they learned in Christian school?
In the nex few weeks I'll be giving these lectures at my kids school. I'll see if I can't get a viedeo of them posted on my site.
GJG
Hi Stephen,
I appreciate this ongoing discussion on being truthful (both in your earlier posts & Kevin’s). And I do think the model of folk-science is good, given certain limitations: at some point it just isn’t strong enough. I think there is a spectrum here. For example, let’s take a fact that is demonstratably false, but which a person says is true. The spectrum for this person could be the following:
1. Believes the statement is true, and has no reason to doubt it whatsoever given their knowledge.
2. Believes the statement is true, but does have some nagging doubts. Does not investigate these doubts (eg. maybe inability).
3. Believes the statement is true, but does have some serious doubts. Willfully ignores or avoids facing the data.
4. Believes the statement is true, even though they have all the knowledge and ability to understand it is false. Full-blown self-deception.
5. Claims the statement is true even if they know the statement is false, but also believes that more good will come from portraying it as true. The “Ends-justifies-the-means” lie.
6. Claims the statement is true even though they believe the statement is false, and maliciously tries to deceive others into believing it is true.
I would say that at least #1 to #3 can be considered folk-science. After that, I’m not so sure.
And back to my earlier comment on the warning to teachers (Jam 3:1), I think the message is that they should not have any excuse for any of the levels in this spectrum. For sure #6 is worse than #1, but there has to be some level of responsibility to do your homework. Maybe more important though (because we probably all make mistakes / don’t do our homework / deceive ourselves at times) is a willingness to admit when you were wrong.
On RTB: I must admit I was somewhat uncomfortable with your critique at the start (like Henry). I’ve always respected Ross, primarily because of his exchanges with YEC folks. And in these exchanges he always seemed charitable even when others were not being charitable to him. I guess I was somewhat naïve because, although I knew he didn’t support evolution, I didn’t think Ross talked about it that much – he was a physicist after all. Well, maybe I should have done my own homework.
To use the scale up top, I would be shocked if RTB folks ever strayed higher than a 4. (For some of the Young Earth Anti-evolutionists I suspect there are some #5’s). In your critique of Rana, I think you are saying he has strayed into #4 on occasion. If this is true, that probably steps outside the bounds of folk-science and maybe harsher language is required. More importantly, he should be given a chance to respond. I know you’ve tried. I did notice today that RTB seems to be taking comments in one section of their site “Average Joe’s Corner”. Wonder if you’d get a response there?
Rats. That was probably too long. Do I get banned?
Wow...lots of great feedback, and it seems like we mostly agree that the concept of folk science is useful. Thanks to Henry for the words of encouragement, and to everyone for seeking an environment in which we can be critical of misconduct without mis-attributing it to evil.
I have some comments to add. First, I don't want the folk science framework to devolve into a polite euphemism for you-know-what. It's true that we are being gracious and forbearing when using the term, but the main goal is not to tiptoe around conflict or rebuke. The main goal is to more accurately describe the kind of misconduct that we're seeing, which is typically not reasonably attributed to outright lying. Keep in mind, please, that the folk science concept also provides something of an explanation for behavior that is otherwise inexplicably (and perhaps inexcusably) irresponsible.
We're not just trying to be polite, and commenters like RBH – and, on some days, me – are understandably impatient with our apparent reluctance to call a spade a spade.
TC Wood: if you don't "get" blogging, feel free to think of this blog instead as "Occasional Papers of the QOD." :-)
Joe: your last point is very interesting, and I'd like to believe it's true. I'm not so sure.
Henry: thank you.
Gordon: keep up the fantastic work; I'm looking forward to the series.
Steve: your comment is almost worthy of a post of its own, and I might just do that. Re chiming in at Average Joe's Corner at RTB, I've thought of it. I didn't want to just barge in and look like a blogwhore, and plus it's not clear that the responses come from Rana or Ross. If and when it seems appropriate, I might try that. Thanks to Sitemeter, I do know that someone from RTB visits the blog regularly (at least twice a week), and it's more than obvious how to contact me. I'm sorry to say that I don't think the RTB "scholars" have any intention of actually talking to scientists. They're apologists, and they surely know by now that their "creation model" is only useful as folk science and is of no use to real scientists. They have little to gain by entering into real dialogue with people who actually understand evolution.
If I seem impatient, it's because sometimes I am. I actually do try to restrain myself here, though. :)
I really like Steve Martin's scale above. It is a nice set of distinctions that will be helpful to keep in mind.
Occasional Papers? I don't know. You'd need an editor, volume numbering, printable PDF, ISSN, etc. :) Not that ongoing conversation isn't valuable.
I think that folk science need not become a euphemism for lies though. Calling something a lie sort of ends the conversation. But I think folk science invites further analysis. Where did a particular claim of folk science come from? Who was the first to use it? How did it evolve into its present form (or did it just emerge fully-formed from a creationist's overactive imagination)? I find that some of the most outrageous claims often evolve from exaggerated but technically accurate statements. If I'm correct about that, then that would put creationists more in the category of politicians who exaggerate claims for political/rhetorical advantage than outright liars. You know, this suggests a study we could do... Survey a series of blatantly false claims by creationists and try to trace them to their origin. Are they false from the beginning or do they evolve? Could be interesting. We could publish an Occasional Paper! :)
One more point: Creationists long ago gave up on scientists. I have heard this directly from several creationists. "There's no point in trying to reach scientists, because they just don't listen." The last time I heard that statement, it was an excuse for publishing a article riddled with error. The author's attitude was that he didn't have to make it technically perfect since it wasn't supposed to be a "scientific" article, since they don't listen anyway. It's heartbreaking, actually.
The Blackadder Says:
I think you have it exactly backwards. There's nothing wrong with scientists having preconceived ideas and/or trying to fit the evidence to these ideas. Far from being anti-scientific, this is how real live flesh and blood scientists (as opposed to the idealized scientists of myth) actually work. The problem is not that creationists have a point of view. It's that they ignore evidence, or present it in a misleading way, etc. One can say that they aren't consciously aware that they are doing this, but the fact that someone is engaged in self-deception doesn't mean he isn't engaged in deception.
Blackadder--
You've got everything right. So who is it that has everything backwards? I doubt anyone in the discussion so far would disagree with you; I surely don't.
The Blackadder Says:
I guess I'm not clear on what the idea of "folk science" is supposed to add to the discussion. Is it just supposed to be a polite euphemism for dishonesty, or something else? If something else, then what is the distinction?
Post a Comment