Denial

[Jerry Smith]

I have scrupled for the past few hours over whether I should make this post or not. On the one hand, these considerations are pertinent. On the other hand, there is ample opportunity for offense. I will disclaim this at the first,  that if any are accustomed to feeling strong offense or emotion at radical and prejudiced ideas, they may opt not to review this thread.

To the rest of you: I fully expect to be flamed unmercilessly for what I present. I hope that many of you will carefully consider my presentation before responding off the cuff. I do not mean to imply by this presentation that any member of this board is a hate-monger of any sort whatsoever. I mean only draw certain paralells between various means and modes of rigorous denial and the denial of evolution called "Creationism". I do this in hopes that some of you who have been exposed to the creationist program will relax "Morton's demon" and take the time to skeptically consider your own views and the views of the proponents of science.

While I was working through my notes on the recent "ambulocetus" controversy on this board, I found myself reviewing this article from True.Origin Archive (a parody site of TalkOrigins):

A Whale fantasy from National Geographic by Harun Yahya. At sight of the name of the author, I felt a tinge of recognition, and upon searching the Talk Origin archives, I remembered why. He is also the author of Holocaust Deception: An Islamic History of the Nazi-Zionist Nexus... a factoid that I had never assigned much significance to before.

Synchronistically, I have recently had on my mind another significant form of denial, which mirrors evolution-denial: HIV-denial. Browsing another discussion board, I had run across references to the famous Phillip Johnson and Jonathan Wells, as HIV-deniers (as cause for the AIDS disease). At the same time, another well-known critic of evolution was mentioned as not only an HIV-denier, but also a relativity denier - Tom Bethell.

I do not mean to suggest by any means that creationism implies anti-semitism or prejudice toward AIDS victims. Nor do I accuse Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, or Tom Bethell of being prejudice against homosexuals or against victims of AIDS. Yet, on this second account, one must wonder what their motivation for denying the cause of HIV is. Surely Johnson, a clever lawyer, would not reveal it if he did have any motivation in prejudice - couching his message instead in the language of scientific criticism - as he has done in the ID debate. But honestly, I do not feel that he is motivated by prejudice. I feel that he, like the other deniers, is motivated (consciously and perhaps even sub-consciously) by strongly held politico-religious beliefs.

I believe that everyone mentioned in this thread honestly believes themselves to be a champion of "truth and goodness", fighting an entrenched establishment that unfairly refuses to hear their voice. I think they are grateful for their grass-roots allies who will "listen to reason" on these matters. I doubt it occurs to them that their uneducated audiences are motivated to accept their ideas uncritically by similar, strongly held, politico-religious beliefs.

I think that for those here who have given their ear too long to evolution-denial it may be a good wake-up call for you to see the same selective acceptance and interpretation of evidence at work in the denial of the Jewish Holocaust and in the denial of viral causes of AIDS. When you see people who, for the sake of protecting their strongly held ideas from scrutiny, are hyper-skeptical of any evidence that is contrary to their belief, and gullibly accepting of any evidence that is (or could be construed to be) supportive of their belief, you may begin to look at your own assessment of new data differently.

I don't think it is an accident that some of these "deniers" are creationists, but I don't think it shows some macabre hidden agenda of creationism. I think it shows a parallel in the methods of understanding their own beliefs under the light of evidence.

 

[Lanakila]

If someone from the evolutionist camp is a Neo-Nazi does that disprove evolution? By no means. Ad hominen attack is not a useful tool of debate Jerry and you already know that. I am not agreeing with these messed up ideas by agreeing with those creationist philosophies they might have. This is the same as the attack on Kent Hovind was. I am not saying he is a great guy and that his website is truthful as I don't know, I never even heard of this guy before you guys started attacking him, but ad hominen (against the man) attacks are not effective because your oponent can see through them, and turn them around on you.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Lanakila,

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
I fully expect to be flamed unmercilessly for what I present. I hope that many of you will carefully consider my presentation before responding off the cuff. I do not mean to imply by this presentation that any member of this board is a hate-monger of any sort whatsoever. I mean only draw certain paralells between various means and modes of rigorous denial and the denial of evolution called "Creationism".

 

[seebs]

Lanakila: If someone shows a consistent pattern of willfully denying facts about the world which bother him, it *does* make him a less credible witness. If someone denies the Holocaust, because it bothers him to imagine that Jews may have suffered at the hands of others, then he might deny something which he felt implied theological problems.

 

[Jerry Smith]

seebs,

I guess the point I was trying to make wasn't about the credibility of Yahya or Johnson or Wells --- it was about the approach of systematic denial.

Part of the parallel is found when I respond to this remark of yours:

If someone denies the Holocaust, because it bothers him to imagine that Jews may have suffered at the hands of others,

Although far more sinister, holocaust denial has something in common with HIV denial and evolution denial - it isn't denial because of unwillingness to confront a tragedy - it is a defense of a politico-religious viewpoint (in this case, it is based on the anti-Semitic viewpoint of certain politically inclined Muslim factions, that Israel's sovereignty should never be recognized.) This is only different from creationism because it is a different politico-religious viewpoint that serves as the motivator.

The parallel extends also to HIV. Rather than "creationism" HIV denial may be motivated by the politico-religious viewpoint that God sent AIDS to America as punishment for our tolerance of our homosexual citizens. I do not know that this is what motivates Wells, Johnson, and Bethell, but I understand from what literature I have examined that this is not an uncommon stance.

Creationism does not encompass or embrace these intolerant views, and is itself much more benign. Yet the formula is the same. The politico-religious viewpoint (the theology of Biblical literalism/Special Creation, with the politics of wishing that particular idea of origins espoused by public school curricula) is threatened by scientific (or in the case of the holocaust - historical) knowledge. The response is not to harmonize scientific and theological knowledge, but to categorically reject the offending scientific knowledge, at all costs - and without giving it the least chance to sway your opinion.

To that end, any factoid or even urban legend can be used as evidence against scientific knowledge - and any evidence or data that confirms evolution is to be considered highly suspect. This strategy is univeral to deniers of every stripe, because only through it can a person justify their denial to themselves and others.

No, seebs, Lanakila, this isn't an ad hominem thread - it is a thread about the methods, means, and motivations of wholesale denial.

 

[Stormy]

Jerry: I do not get the point. I know there must be one. But it eludes me.

If you are saying to the Creationist that because another person believes on one subject as you do but this person also believes quite differently on other subjects that are unrelated or related to the first then in order that you are not to be drawn into his line of questionable reasoning on other matters and so that you will be protected from the prospect that others might consider you to be of a similar nature as this person with what most would agree to be wrong conceptions then it would be better that you decide to not be in agreement with said person on any matter relating to anything of importance because if you are than you are with out a doubt also as screwed up as he is because you carry the quilt by association but even if this said person is not one that agrees with you on Creation it is still good that you give up your believes on Creation because this person does in fact exist and it is true that he possess messed up thoughts and somehow not quite understood yet but surely to be suspected you and he must be related because otherwise you would not entertain thoughts that are not in agreement with Evolution and you would understand this line of reasoning and from this moment on believe with your whole heart and soul in Evolution!

Is that what you are saying? LOL

Now before you answer yes…

Please consider that you an Atheist and are using this argument to talk Christians into evolution.

Put it in that perspective and your argument fails.

But hey… It was fun!!!

Can you see the humor or do you think I flamed you?

I hope you are laughing.

 

[Lanakila]

You lost me Stormy LOL

 

[blader]

If you are saying to the Creationist that because another person believes on one subject as you do but this person also believes quite differently on other subjects that are unrelated or related to the first then in order that you are not to be drawn into his line of questionable reasoning on other matters and so that you will be protected from the prospect that others might consider you to be of a similar nature as this person with what most would agree to be wrong conceptions then it would be better that you decide to not be in agreement with said person on any matter relating to anything of importance because if you are than you are with out a doubt also as screwed up as he is because you carry the quilt by association but even if this said person is not one that agrees with you on Creation it is still good that you give up your believes on Creation because this person does in fact exist and it is true that he possess messed up thoughts and somehow not quite understood yet but surely to be suspected you and he must be related because otherwise you would not entertain thoughts that are not in agreement with Evolution and you would understand this line of reasoning and from this moment on believe with your whole heart and soul in Evolution!

Crikey. This belongs in the Guiness for "longest sentence ever."

 

[wb3]

 I am a Christian and in that am called to be a prejudice-lover of all people.The Bilble makes several references that are prejudice. Being a believer I will attempt to follow all of them. One off the top of my head is "don't be unequally yoked with unbelievers. Another words don't even go as far as to date, being a believer, a unbeliever because God WILL get in the way and the other person won't understand.

  So in response yes i am prejudice to unbbelievers because they have not accepted forgiveness in order to be forgiven. However, God has also called believers to love all people in order to show them to Christ.

 

[Christian Soldier]

"A Whale fantasy from National Geographic by Harun Yahya. At sight of the name of the author, I felt a tinge of recognition, and upon searching the Talk Origin archives, I remembered why. He is also the author of Holocaust Deception: An Islamic History of the Nazi-Zionist Nexus... a factoid that I had never assigned much significance to before."

Please explain what relevance a Muslim like Yahya has to Creationist Christians (CC's). Yahya's faith is Islam, he rejects the divinity of Christ and the authority of the New Testament, both of which are cardinal beliefs of CC's. The super-majority of CC's consider themselves close friends of Jews and Israel, and reject holocaust denial.

"Synchronistically, I have recently had on my mind another significant form of denial, which mirrors evolution-denial: HIV-denial. Browsing another discussion board, I had run across references to the famous Phillip Johnson and Jonathan Wells, as HIV-deniers (as cause for the AIDS disease). At the same time, another well-known critic of evolution was mentioned as not only an HIV-denier, but also a relativity denier - Tom Bethell."

For your information, so-called HIV-denial has virtually nothing to do with Creationism. Peter Duesberg, a secular scientist with a Ph.D. in molecular biology from the University of California at Berkeley, who is a practicing virologist and authority on retroviruses---was the first to popularize the notion that HIV does not cause AIDS. His theory has absolutely nothing to do with Creationism. If Johnson and Wells wish to subscribe to his theory, it is their personal view, nothing else.

"I do not mean to suggest by any means that creationism implies anti-semitism or prejudice toward AIDS victims. Nor do I accuse Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, or Tom Bethell of being prejudice against homosexuals or against victims of AIDS. Yet, on this second account, one must wonder what their motivation for denying the cause of HIV is. Surely Johnson, a clever lawyer, would not reveal it if he did have any motivation in prejudice - couching his message instead in the language of scientific criticism - as he has done in the ID debate. But honestly, I do not feel that he is motivated by prejudice. I feel that he, like the other deniers, is motivated (consciously and perhaps even sub-consciously) by strongly held politico-religious beliefs."

A number of mainstream secular scientists like Duesberg deny that HIV causes AIDS. Duesberg is not now, nor has he ever been, a Creationist. Your diatribe is pointless.

"I believe that everyone mentioned in this thread honestly believes themselves to be a champion of "truth and goodness", fighting an entrenched establishment that unfairly refuses to hear their voice. I think they are grateful for their grass-roots allies who will "listen to reason" on these matters. I doubt it occurs to them that their uneducated audiences are motivated to accept their ideas uncritically by similar, strongly held, politico-religious beliefs."

Evolution is a strongly held politico-religious belief. Do you have a point?

"I think that for those here who have given their ear too long to evolution-denial it may be a good wake-up call for you to see the same selective acceptance and interpretation of evidence at work in the denial of the Jewish Holocaust and in the denial of viral causes of AIDS. When you see people who, for the sake of protecting their strongly held ideas from scrutiny, are hyper-skeptical of any evidence that is contrary to their belief, and gullibly accepting of any evidence that is (or could be construed to be) supportive of their belief, you may begin to look at your own assessment of new data differently."

See my previous remarks in this post, you are engaging in an ad hominem attack via guilt by association.

"I don't think it is an accident that some of these "deniers" are creationists, but I don't think it shows some macabre hidden agenda of creationism. I think it shows a parallel in the methods of understanding their own beliefs under the light of evidence."

Your rant is mean-spirited and meaningless.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Stormy, to be honest I'm not sure I got you...

I do review and careful consider creationist ideas on a regular basis. On the occasions that creationists present data, I consider it, too. Creationism in the form of denial of evolution fails on the data, unless one only considers data in terms favorable to creationism (in other words unfavorable to evolution).

I feel that you also consider all of the data, and that your point of view is enhanced by that. I think you have yet to encounter much of the data, and (if you don't mind my saying) I think you are somewhat unclear on the basic epistemology of science, but you appear to be open minded, and the parallels between evolution-denial and other forms of denial do not seem to apply to you, at least from my perspective.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier

Please explain what relevance a Muslim like Yahya has to Creationist Christians (CC's). Yahya's faith is Islam, he rejects the divinity of Christ and the authority of the New Testament, both of which are cardinal beliefs of CC's. The super-majority of CC's consider themselves close friends of Jews and Israel, and reject holocaust denial.

Hi, Soldier - I see you are still in a chipper mood! The super-majority of CC's do consider themselves close friends of the Jews and Israel, and they do reject holocaust denial. That's one reason I thought perhaps they might be more apt to see the flaws in that style of reasoning, and therefore might be more careful to avoid those same flaws in their own thinking. Do you think I was being too optimistic?


You ask what relevance Yahya's creationism has to your version of it? I would think little, apart from the facts that 1) it is good enough for True.Origins, and 2) his borrows the denial methods from the Christian version. Don't believe me? Check out the methodology in his article and compare to your own personal favorite from the evolution-denial camp. 

For your information, so-called HIV-denial has virtually nothing to do with Creationism. Peter Duesberg, a secular scientist with a Ph.D. in molecular biology from the University of California at Berkeley, who is a practicing virologist and authority on retroviruses---was the first to popularize the notion that HIV does not cause AIDS. His theory has absolutely nothing to do with Creationism. If Johnson and Wells wish to subscribe to his theory, it is their personal view, nothing else.

Another case where personal distance from the issue gives folks an opportunity to see the flaws in the reasoning. Also, it is worth pointing out that the same people, using the same reasoning, arrive at conclusions that deny evolution. 

Duesberg is not now, nor has he ever been, a Creationist. Your diatribe is pointless.

Oh, you must have misunderstood me. I tried to make it perfectly clear that even a majority of the other deniers were also evolution-deniers. If you will read my post again, you will most likely find my point buried in there among all the disclaimers against that very idea.

Evolution is a strongly held politico-religious belief. Do you have a point?

The idea that evolution is a strongly held politico-religious belief is itself a result of the very reasoning that I critique in this thread. If you cannot think outside of that box, you will never understand that evolution is a scientific theory, one accepted by many people of very diverse religious and political beliefs, and not dependant on or derived from any of those beliefs.

See my previous remarks in this post, you are engaging in an ad hominem attack via guilt by association.

Your rant is mean-spirited and meaningless.

Hmm. I did try to make myself terribly clear. Apparently I failed. No - that was not my aim. I am critiquing a type of reasoning, not attacking the people who employ it..

 

[Cantuar]

Jerry, I'm not sure where Holocaust deniers fit into this, but I think that the people who are denying evolution (although that isn't precisely Johnson's position) and the HIV-AIDS connection are trying to undermine the scientific orthodoxy from as many points as possible. If they can use the HIV-AIDS controversy (if it still is a controversy) to cast doubt on the scientific establishment, then that makes it a bit easier to plant doubt in the mind of the public about evolution in particular and the scientific-materialist-rationalist philosophy in general. I'm sure it's all part of the same thing. I'm somewhat less sure about the Holocaust stuff; that just seems to be religious prejudice run mad.

 

[Christian Soldier]

"Hi, Soldier - I see you are still in a chipper mood! The super-majority of CC's do consider themselves close friends of the Jews and Israel, and they do reject holocaust denial. That's one reason I thought perhaps they might be more apt to see the flaws in that style of reasoning, and therefore might be more careful to avoid those same flaws in their own thinking. Do you think I was being too optimistic?"

Your mind is wandering and you're rambling again. Holocaust denial has nothing to do with Creationism. Yahya has his own political views, which he is entitled to. But you are trying to create a link where none exists.

I can do the very same thing you are. Take Francis Crick's panspermia theory for example. There's no doubt that Crick is the most celebrated biologist of our time, his scientific credentials are unquestioned. Crick is a devout evolutionist. His panspermia theory is obviously sheer lunacy. Now using your own illogic, I can start talking about "flaws in that style of evolutionist reasoning" blah, blah, blah.

The moral of the story is: Yahya is a nobody with a weird political opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with Christian Creationism. Francis Crick is a world-renown evolutionary biologist with a whacky scientific theory. Using your illogic, I've proven that prominent evolutionary biologists are prone to accepting looney theories. So evolution may just be another crackpot theory!

"You ask what relevance Yahya's creationism has to your version of it? I would think little, apart from the facts that 1) it is good enough for True.Origins, and 2) his borrows the denial methods from the Christian version. Don't believe me? Check out the methodology in his article and compare to your own personal favorite from the evolution-denial camp. "

See my previous paragraphs above, your line of "reasoning" has already been shot down. Next!

"Another case where personal distance from the issue gives folks an opportunity to see the flaws in the reasoning. Also, it is worth pointing out that the same people, using the same reasoning, arrive at conclusions that deny evolution. "

Blah, blah, blah. I've already shown YOUR flawed reasoning.

"Oh, you must have misunderstood me. I tried to make it perfectly clear that even a majority of the other deniers were also evolution-deniers. If you will read my post again, you will most likely find my point buried in there among all the disclaimers against that very idea."

All your "points" are buried, somewhere in your brain. You're rarely able to make intelligible points in your posts, epecially your posts in this particular thread.

"The idea that evolution is a strongly held politico-religious belief is itself a result of the very reasoning that I critique in this thread. If you cannot think outside of that box, you will never understand that evolution is a scientific theory, one accepted by many people of very diverse religious and political beliefs, and not dependant on or derived from any of those beliefs."

I've never claimed evolution wasn't a scientific theory, but it's also a politico-religious belief. You're unable to think outside of your minute evolutionary box.

"Hmm. I did try to make myself terribly clear. Apparently I failed. No - that was not my aim. I am critiquing a type of reasoning, not attacking the people who employ it.."

Then I critiqued your critique, and showed your own "type of reasoning" to be badly lacking in both common sense and intellectual rigor.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier  
Yahya has his own political views, which he is entitled to. But you are trying to create a link where none exists.

Extrinsic link: True.Origins is a Christian Creationist organization that uses Yahya's arguments.

Intrinsic link: He is an evolution-denier. He differs from the Christian variety of Creationist only in creed.  

I can do the very same thing you are. Take Francis Crick's panspermia theory for example. There's no doubt that Crick is the most celebrated biologist of our time, his scientific credentials are unquestioned. Crick is a devout evolutionist. His panspermia theory is obviously sheer lunacy. Now using your own illogic, I can start talking about "flaws in that style of evolutionist reasoning" blah, blah, blah.

I don't see panspermia as sheer lunacy, but I do see it as a weak hypothesis. It isn't a form of denial though, like evolution, HIV, or Holocaust denial, and he doesn't defend his hypothesis with  hyperskepticalism of all contrary data, as do the various sorts of deniers.. I don't see your point.

The moral of the story is: Yahya is a nobody with a weird political opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with Christian Creationism. Francis Crick is a world-renown evolutionary biologist with a whacky scientific theory. Using your illogic, I've proven that prominent evolutionary biologists are prone to accepting looney theories. So evolution may just be another crackpot theory!

You have badly misunderstood my argument. If you would re-read the original post, you might see where your ideas of my argument diverge from their reality. 

See my previous paragraphs above, your line of "reasoning" has already been shot down. Next!

Could you give an instant replay? I pointed out parallels in motivation and method between three sorts of denial, in order to highlight for you the flaws in that method. Perhaps you could make clear what you have done to "shoot down" my line of reasoning on this? 

Blah, blah, blah. I've already shown YOUR flawed reasoning.

I'll re-read your post. Still, I cannot find where you accomplished this for the life of me..

All your "points" are buried, somewhere in your brain. You're rarely able to make intelligible points in your posts, epecially your posts in this particular thread.

Shall I try harder? 

I've never claimed evolution wasn't a scientific theory, but it's also a politico-religious belief. You're unable to think outside of your minute evolutionary box.

Can you name any other politico-religious beliefs that rest their acceptance exclusively on data? 

Then I critiqued your critique, and showed your own "type of reasoning" to be badly lacking in both common sense and intellectual rigor.

You must have done so very subtly. Perhaps you could repeat this critique, more explicitly? 

 

[Christian Soldier]

"Extrinsic link: True.Origins is a Christian Creationist organization that uses Yahya's arguments.

Intrinsic link: He is an evolution-denier. He differs from the Christian variety of Creationist only in creed.  "

True.Origins is not an organization, it is merely a website. You're dead wrong. Therefore, your other alleged "facts" are also suspect.

Just because they may have used one of his scientific arguments briefly, does not mean they endorse his political views. You have still not proven any credible link whatsoever.

Hitler was a devout evolutionist and the key perpetrator of the holocaust. Therefore, using your illogic, there's a definite link between his political views and those of you and your fellow evolutionists.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
True.Origins is not an organization, it is merely a website. You're dead wrong. Therefore, your other alleged "facts" are also suspect.

A quibble.

Just because they may have used one of his scientific arguments briefly, does not mean they endorse his political views. You have still not proven any credible link whatsoever.

You have it backwards: the link is that they borrowed his anti-science arguments. They used the same methods in their denial as he uses in his denial. 

Hitler was a devout evolutionist and the key perpetrator of the holocaust. Therefore, using your illogic, there's a definite link between his political views and those of you and your fellow evolutionists.

Hitler did not deny the science of evolution, but he did embrace a twisted interpretation of it, custom suited to his own prejudice, and not founded on the data. My point about the similarities in tactics and motivation between the various deniers really doesn't speak to this separate and wholly distinct phenomenon of misapplication of science that you bring up. Why not address my arguments, instead of the arguments you wish that I would make so that your rebuttal would apply?

 

[Stormy]

Jerry: you say you do not understand me? I tried to approach your nonsense rant and faulty cultivation of all forms of denial as a disease of the mind... with an equally obscured rant of my own. No you were not supposed to "get" it. You were to think that I had gone mad, as I did you, when reading your thread.

I would say that you were trying to build a straw man, but that would be giving your idea too much credit.

To put it bluntly enough so that you will understand… If I were to wish to not be associated with a person that is in denial… It would be you, and those like you, that I would fear the most. You deny your Creator!

There is without a doubt an undercurrent of Evolution that tries to destroy belief in God. I am not saying that is the prime motive but only that Atheist seize upon it and try to exploit it!

If any form of evolution is to be true than it must co-exist with the Creator. It is you that is in denial. It is your denial that should concern you the most.

With our ideas of life being so far apart it is with love from my heart that I pray we can remain as friends. It is going to be a rocky road ahead for the two of us on this forum. I hope that we can rise above it.

 

[AtheistArchon]

- People.  PLEASE read all of Jerry's first post before you get your panties in a wad.  He specifically stated that he's not arguing that creationists are anti-semites, nor HIV deniers.  Nor is he arguing that creationsm even leads to these things.

- It is not a rant, it is not nonsensical, and it is not an attack upon creationists as being feeble-minded.

 

[Stormy]

AtheistArchon : Then explain to me what it is.