The Danger of Creationism

[SkyWriting]

Which in the context of anti-vax movements has deadly consequences.

The deadly consequence's started with people's behavior long before there were any vaccines. This is the 3rd strain of coronavirus to create a pandemic. SARS in 2002-2003 and MERS in 2012.

 

[Astrid]

My mistake. Actually, when I was talking about testimony and memoirs, I was talking about actual history and not historical science. I admit that did go a bit off-tangent there, but what I meant is that historical science deals with speculations about events in the past that can't be re-created in the present, and as a result its claims cannot be tested, verified or falsified in the same way a chemical analysis can. It's a bit more like forensics, I guess, in that while DNA testing can reveal a lot about a crime scene, to reconstruct the story, the police usually rely on other circumstantial evidences outside of the lab, such as eyewitness testimonies and alibis.

My point is that, in scientific practices, you don't really need to know how an object came to be (i.e. its history) to know how it works and use it for various purposes (i.e. its operation). A scientist looking to test the reactivity of elements based on its periodic grouping doesn't have to know how the periodic table is developed, and one's beliefs on the origins of the universe has no bearings on how well they can, say, prepare standard solutions to quantify analytes in a sample.

I'm not going to argue about evolution vs. creation because that's not the point of this thread, but you don't have to be anti-science to reject certain scientific claims.

But you do have to be anti science to reject the ToE.

 

[Astrid]

My mistake. Actually, when I was talking about testimony and memoirs, I was talking about actual history and not historical science. I admit that did go a bit off-tangent there, but what I meant is that historical science deals with speculations about events in the past that can't be re-created in the present, and as a result its claims cannot be tested, verified or falsified in the same way a chemical analysis can. It's a bit more like forensics, I guess, in that while DNA testing can reveal a lot about a crime scene, to reconstruct the story, the police usually rely on other circumstantial evidences outside of the lab, such as eyewitness testimonies and alibis.

My point is that, in scientific practices, you don't really need to know how an object came to be (i.e. its history) to know how it works and use it for various purposes (i.e. its operation). A scientist looking to test the reactivity of elements based on its periodic grouping doesn't have to know how the periodic table is developed, and one's beliefs on the origins of the universe has no bearings on how well they can, say, prepare standard solutions to quantify analytes in a sample.

I'm not going to argue about evolution vs. creation because that's not the point of this thread, but you don't have to be anti-science to reject certain scientific claims.

"Spevulstion" is about things for which there is no firm evidence.

To claim that interpretation of all past events cannot be tested,
reproduced, or falsified is sheer twaddle.

 

[pitabread]

The deadly consequence's started with people's behavior long before there were any vaccines. This is the 3rd strain of coronavirus to create a pandemic. SARS in 2002-2003 and MERS in 2012.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[SkyWriting]

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

This is the first time we considered a Vaccine to be of value through other outbreaks were far more lethal. You can't just blame antivaxers for not jumping in the pool all of a sudden. Perhaps some people don't trust "Trump's vaccine".

 

[pitabread]

This is the first time we considered a Vaccine to be of value through other outbreaks were far more lethal. You can't just blame antivaxers for not jumping in the pool all of a sudden. Perhaps some people don't trust "Trump's vaccine".

I'm not sure what you mean by other outbreaks being more lethal. While the case fatality rates were quite high, the relative transmissibility of those viruses were not (one of the consequences of highly fatal viruses). The outbreaks ended up being contained as a result.

In contrast the current SARS-CoV-2 is far less deadly, but far more transmissible, thus infecting a substantially larger population and causing vastly more overall deaths.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "first time we considered a Vaccine to be of value"? We've been using vaccines for over a hundred years. There are already mandates in place for individual (typically at childhood) to receive vaccines for various diseases. This is not a new thing at all.

It's also worth noting that anti-vaxxers have been around long before this outbreak. You can go back over a hundred years to advent of the smallpox vaccine and see similar types of resistance.

 

[Juvenal]

He ends the video by calling on professional scientists to take more responsibility in debunking anti-science and pseudoscientific views no matter what they are. And that by not doing so, scientists are allowing general mistrust of science and science professionals to foster. Which in the context of anti-vax movements has deadly consequences.

I'm not aware of any academic achieving tenure or advancing in rank by debunking pseudoscience. I am, however, aware of numerous studies showing the presentation of contradictory information serves little purpose beyond confirming false beliefs.

Creationism is arguably a gateway drug to more general denials of science, but in the case of Covid-19, I question whether it's an argument that we should be having.

With apologies, this is deadly serious. When approaching these discussions in online fora, or with my students, my greatest fear is that something I write or say will, because of my approach, encourage behavior that will lead to someone's death. We're talking about c. 650k dead in the US and 4.5MM worldwide, so far, with an understanding, by comparison with expected death rates, that these are underestimates.

Covid-19 is far more dangerous than creationism. And if there are professional creationists, or creationism organizations, looking to use their influence to encourage NPIs and vaccinations that will save the lives of those they can reach, we should, in this instance at least, recognize them as the allies they are.

This is not a novel approach. African Americans have reason to distrust government medical programs, and that distrust has, unfortunately, resulted in a reluctance to accept the entirely unrelated Covid-19 vaccination. In response, we look to African American allies, from popular political figures to church pastors to unlink these issues, in order to save lives.

Creationists distrust the core theory of biology because they believe it presents an eternal threat to their immortal souls.

There's a locally influential Southern Baptist preacher, from Texas, I correspond with regularly on another board. This is someone who, in 2021, still views the Civil War through the filter of States Rights. But through listening to fellow, right wing fringe, conservative Christians on the site, who nevertheless accept evolution, his own views have been moderated.

He was vaccinated last week, in part, I like to think, because of the personal appeals I've made to him expressing my helplessness in reaching out to his fellow Christian tradents about the need to take the appropriate cautions against Covid-19, people who, as I've said to him directly, will not listen to me.

The Sarfati who appears in your o/p was once a member on this other, conservative Christian-run site, which is unquestionably far more liberal than CF in allowing flames and insults, until he was kicked off because of his inability to engage in anything approaching civil behavior, even with his fellow Christians when they disagree with him. By that standard, he is, objectively, obnoxious.

But if he can reach those who won't listen to me, and help to save lives from Covid-19, I'm not going to work against him by undoing the unlinking of evolution to basic public health measures supported by modern epidemiology.

As I'm on record saying to a certain Texas preacher, his politics are atrocious and his religious is naive, and I'd like the chance to keep on telling him so, a sentiment I'm willing to extend more broadly to the "C" section of the C/E community here.

Don't die of Covid, folks. I'd be indescribably disappointed.

 

[Tom 1]

Livestream from yesterday from Creation Myths (creationism debunking channel run by evolutionary biologist Dan Cardinale).

The thesis of the stream is the idea that creationist organizations (e.g. professional creationists) have spent decades training their followers to distrust science and science professionals. In the context of evolution-denial, it's theoretically not a big deal. In the context of the current pandemic and vaccines, however, science distrust is causing real harm.

The video specifically shows examples of professional creationists and creationist organizations promoting vaccines, and then proceeding to get into arguments with anti-vax contingents of their own followers.

There is a palpable irony in seeing creationists arguing in favor of science against other creationists arguing against it. At one point, a quote from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, whereby Sarfati states that anyone thinking that the vaccine is worse than COVID-19 is living in a "magical world". Meanwhile, I'm thinking, "you mean like people who believe the world is only 6000 years old? Those people?"

Dr. Dan does credit these creationists and orgs that at least they are being responsible in promoting the vaccines and trying to save lives. But also laments that a lot of the folks posting vaccine conspiracies and other nonsense are basically just "gone" at this point. Words on the internet are not likely to convince them, even from people they otherwise had trusted.

He ends the video by calling on professional scientists to take more responsibility in debunking anti-science and pseudoscientific views no matter what they are. And that by not doing so, scientists are allowing general mistrust of science and science professionals to foster. Which in the context of anti-vax movements has deadly consequences.

This is an interesting article on the roots of ideas like creationism - The Wasting of the Evangelical Mind
The basic idea is that while the puritans, whatever other faults they may have had, came from a milieu of religious traditions that by and large had come to respect education, the revivalist movements in the US largely rejected knowledge and the kind of broad education promoted by Christian humanists in favour of instinct and intuition. Over time, the evangelical and other movements that came out of this have attempted to form their own style of 'education' which is rooted in magical thinking and a rejection of anything that seems to contradict crude, simplistic interpretations of the bible, to one degree or another. This way of thinking appears to form the whole mental world within which a fair number of people seem to live. What from the outside seem to be conclusions reached through reliance on random and sketchy notions is referred to as 'common sense'. In a way that is true, as it is a way of perceiving the world that is very common within those circles, reinforced through their favourite news media echo chambers. Attempts to confront this worldview with external realities is like playing charades in the dark with people wearing welding goggles.

 

[SkyWriting]

When approaching these discussions in online fora, or with my students, my greatest fear is that something I write or say will, because of my approach, encourage behavior that will lead to someone's death.

That's not your problem. One voice has little effect on these things. It takes about 7 encouraging "touches" to make a difference. You can't overrule somebody's parents and friends.

 

[pitabread]

One voice has little effect on these things.

You'd be surprised. People in leadership roles can have tremendous influence.

 

[SkyWriting]

You'd be surprised. People in leadership roles can have tremendous influence.

I will be when I read your evidence from my trusted sources.
So you believe you are easily swayed by my sources?

 

[Juvenal]

That's not your problem. One voice has little effect on these things. It takes about 7 encouraging "touches" to make a difference. You can't overrule somebody's parents and friends.

In the words of Charles Dickens.

“But you were always a good man of business, Jacob,' faltered Scrooge, who now began to apply this to himself.

Business!' cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”​

You'd be surprised. People in leadership roles can have tremendous influence.

In the words of Stephen Jay Gould.

The patterns of human history mix decency and depravity in equal measure. We often assume, therefore, that such a fine balance of results must emerge from societies made of decent and depraved people in equal numbers. But we need to expose and celebrate the fallacy of this conclusion so that, in this moment of crisis, we may reaffirm an essential truth too easily forgotten, and regain some crucial comfort too readily forgone. Good and kind people outnumber all others by thousands to one. The tragedy of human history lies in the enormous potential for destruction in rare acts of evil, not in the high frequency of evil people. Complex systems can only be built step by step, whereas destruction requires but an instant. Thus, in what I like to call the Great Asymmetry, every spectacular incident of evil will be balanced by 10,000 acts of kindness, too often unnoted and invisible as the ''ordinary'' efforts of a vast majority.​

Perhaps it's true that it requires seven touches, from seven of us, to make a difference, and perhaps it takes ten thousand, but if not us, who, and if not now, when.

 

[loveofourlord]

Livestream from yesterday from Creation Myths (creationism debunking channel run by evolutionary biologist Dan Cardinale).

The thesis of the stream is the idea that creationist organizations (e.g. professional creationists) have spent decades training their followers to distrust science and science professionals. In the context of evolution-denial, it's theoretically not a big deal. In the context of the current pandemic and vaccines, however, science distrust is causing real harm.

The video specifically shows examples of professional creationists and creationist organizations promoting vaccines, and then proceeding to get into arguments with anti-vax contingents of their own followers.

There is a palpable irony in seeing creationists arguing in favor of science against other creationists arguing against it. At one point, a quote from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, whereby Sarfati states that anyone thinking that the vaccine is worse than COVID-19 is living in a "magical world". Meanwhile, I'm thinking, "you mean like people who believe the world is only 6000 years old? Those people?"

Dr. Dan does credit these creationists and orgs that at least they are being responsible in promoting the vaccines and trying to save lives. But also laments that a lot of the folks posting vaccine conspiracies and other nonsense are basically just "gone" at this point. Words on the internet are not likely to convince them, even from people they otherwise had trusted.

He ends the video by calling on professional scientists to take more responsibility in debunking anti-science and pseudoscientific views no matter what they are. And that by not doing so, scientists are allowing general mistrust of science and science professionals to foster. Which in the context of anti-vax movements has deadly consequences.

I actually brought this up to my mom, but in the context of satan, and the end times, and antichrist and such. That there is just so much distrust built into Chrsitianity about certain things, and just the idea that, "X is a plot by satan." that when there is something real and serious people just think it's another one of these plots. Sort of the reverse cry wolf, so many wolf cries that people see the wolf everywhere.

 

[loveofourlord]

Comparing believers of Young Earth Creationism and anti-vaxxers is a false equivalence.

Creation Ministries, especially, has always been careful to distinguish operational science and historical science. The study of immunology fall under the latter; the experiments involved in that field are repeatable and reproducible, and therefore the reports on the efficacy of a newly-developed vaccine is easily falsifiable by a different laboratory/research team testing the sample of the vaccine on a sample of the virus strain and see whether or not the product works as advertised (although, of course, in vitro and in vivo experiments may produce different results due to the variety of the human body response in different individuals -- which are in turn affected by a myriad of other factors from genetics to pre-existing health conditions -- and this adds the complexity of verifying any scientific claims, especially when it involves health & wellness).

The evolution vs. creation debate, meanwhile, is a historical science. It is neither repeatable, reproducible nor falsifiable, as we cannot re-create the Big Bang or whatever origin story one believes in, and as a result the proponents of any such theory would rely more assumptions and presuppositions (i.e. faith) in order to reach a conclusion on the narrative. History, after all, are based more on eyewitness accounts, testimonies, written records such as letters and memoirs, rather than actual empirical evidence. And while the origin narrative a person holds can have philosophical implications that might influence the rest of their worldview, it doesn't determine the authenticity of their scientific authority -- just as a programmer doesn't need to know how their computer and the history behind its invention, to be able to create a functioning software.

As for the issue of fostering science distrust, I think it has more to do with the people's general wariness against government bodies, large institutions and media outlets who tend to have something to gain by promoting their version of truth claim (whether or not it actually true) and have the power to get away with the consequences if they are disproven. What they believe about the origins of the universe seems hardly a factor in these issues.

Except that historical sciences is just a talking point by creationists to whine about anything they don't like, and yes evolution is repeatable it's by definition that way. You don't have to repeat the event, just be able to repeat the experiment or study done to prove the event. If creationists want to be taken seriously they need to least understand the sciences they are attacking.

 

[loveofourlord]

Whether a medicine is "safe" or "effective" is highly situational. If one has cancer, anti cancer drugs are "safe and effective" when compared to the alternative. But a drug useful for one illness is not necessarily safe, and rarely useful, for another illness. Antivaxxers and other science deniers too often use a black and white fallacy assuming that a drug that cures one thing should cure all things. Medicine is much more complicated than that.

And as far as antivaxxers they are not all right wing science deniers, but a large percentage of them are. There are studies that show the Trump counties are suffering much more than the Biden counties. This is not due to services offered but by acceptance of the vaccines.

Some drugs are even harmful if you don't have the disease, or the problem, as if they don't have th virus/poison/radiation or such they are designed to go after, they will go after the next closest one.

 

[tas8831]

...but what I meant is that historical science deals with speculations about events in the past that can't be re-created in the present,

Speculations? Do you consider recreation of a specific event a requirement in science?

It's a bit more like forensics, I guess, in that while DNA testing can reveal a lot about a crime scene, to reconstruct the story, the police usually rely on other circumstantial evidences outside of the lab, such as eyewitness testimonies and alibis.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

My point is that, in scientific practices, you don't really need to know how an object came to be (i.e. its history) to know how it works and use it for various purposes (i.e. its operation). A scientist looking to test the reactivity of elements based on its periodic grouping doesn't have to know how the periodic table is developed, and one's beliefs on the origins of the universe has no bearings on how well they can, say, prepare standard solutions to quantify analytes in a sample.

True, yet a very common creationist tactic is to conflate the theory of evolution with abiogenesis, demanding that we must explain how life began in order to assess how it changed later. Anti-science types often append such idiosyncratic and arbitrarily-applied requirements to scientific issues so as to avoid having to admit their ignorance/inability to deal with material they do not like. For example, creationist Paul Nelson used to claim the entire field of molecular phylogenetics moot because we did not also explain what the shared mutations did, which he should have understood is totally irrelevant.

I'm not going to argue about evolution vs. creation because that's not the point of this thread, but you don't have to be anti-science to reject certain scientific claims.

You do have to be anti-science to think a dichotomy dreamed up by creationists to avoid having to admit they've got nothing to offer scientifically has merit.
When I have done searches for this subject, the ONLY returns I ever seem to get are to creationist sources, emphatically declaring there to be some kind of gulf between what they define as 'operational' and 'historical' science. Their "reasoning" is as obvious as it is specious.

 

[tas8831]

From Darwin's travels?

His memoirs are not evidence. His writings explained his findings, and his theory was premised on his findings. He actually collected a great deal of evidence.
The scrolls used to assemble what we call the bible, on the other hand...

 

[tas8831]

See, here's the thing. I explain to you why I don't believe something

You don't really explain anything, you just assert.

and you want this to be a debate where one of us wins the argument about whether or not the vaccines are worth it. You've got me wrong. I don't need to keep a library of references and links, because I'm not trying to prove anything, unless it is simply that I don't see enough reason to get the vaccine, and I am even generous enough to tell you WHY I don't.

Your reasons are vacuous and unfounded. And pretty arbitrary, especially given that I provided evidence that the 'alternative' treatment of the day' is hardly reliable, when advocates of its success rely on fraud and exaggeration.

 

[tas8831]

Oh. I've mentioned that the military should be defunded in favor of healthcare development. I'd like to see us pull out of other countries and set up hospitals here for people to get repaired here after we do. For profit and non-profit healthcare, either one.

Cool, we agree! But it looks like your fellow super-Christian Mark doesn't... Oh dear...

 

[Mark Quayle]

You don't really explain anything, you just assert.
Your reasons are vacuous and unfounded. And pretty arbitrary, especially given that I provided evidence that the 'alternative' treatment of the day' is hardly reliable, when advocates of its success rely on fraud and exaggeration.

ok