Are creationists arrogant? A review of King Crocoduck's series: Part 5

King Crocoduck (which I abbreviate as KC) concludes his series with a brief recap of the first 4 videos. As I listened to the summary of each video, I kept thinking of things I'd like to have included in my previous criticism that I could include now but I'm going to resist for the sake of space. Anyway, he seems to express a belief that his first 4 videos built upon each other in a logical progression leading up to his main point which is what he claims is the motive behind creationists' arrogance. I just don't see the progression. Actually, I wasn't even sure of his main point in video 4 until I heard his summary but OK, I'll concede that each video made a different point. Even so, KC's always-present condescension and incessant barrage of insults made all of the videos sound alike.

I wanted to cite a pithy quote from KC to summarize his point in video 5 but couldn't find so I'll have to provide my own summary. KC is saying that creationists – all creationists – intentionally lie and pervert science solely to make the available data seem to fit our narrow interpretation of our sacred text. Beginning at around 9:48, KC says, “Creationists, if your position is so strong, why do you rely on such dishonesty to defend it? I'm not just referring to examples of fraud, like the Paluxy riverbed footprints or the creationist leaders with fake academic degrees. I'm talking about the entire philosophy of creationist claims.” Now, lest anyone think KC is using hyperbole when he says, “the entire philosophy of creationist claims,” I will quote KC further. He says, “Any and all creationists claims will, without exception, fall into at least one of the following categories:”

• Failure with regard to the scientific method and/or relevant scientific principles
• Unreasonable/Inconsistent standard of evidence
• Vague terminology
• “You just have to beeleev!” (that is, to have blind, dogmatic faith in creationism)

There you have it, folks. Every claim, every argument, every fossil, every fact, every piece of data ever cited by a creationist is a fraud!

Keeping this list in mind, back up the video to about 2:38 where KC says, “A scientist's judgment remains tabular rasa and a scientist will only follow evidence wherever it leads – not wherever they want it to go!” OK, then here is my question: When KC overtly states that all evidence for creation will be flawed or fabricated, how can he possibly believe that all scientists look at the evidence objectively? You see, KC is doing exactly what he accuses creationists of doing. He has already made up his mind that origin models like the Big Bang and evolution are true. Therefore, any evidence I could present to the contrary will be - indeed, has been already – dismissed a priori without even being examined.

Let me give you an example of the how scientists have a bias that influences how they interpret evidence. Young earth creationists believe dinosaurs were contemporary with humans and only became extinct a few thousand years ago. A few years ago, Dr. Mary Schweitzer found red blood cells in a t-rex fossil. Since creationists believe the dinosaur fossil could only be a few thousand years old, it's not really a surprise there might be original biomatter still contained in it. Many creationists, myself included, have cited this as evidence in support of our theory. It's one of my “10 Evidences for Biblical Creation.”

Evolutionists, on the other hand, believe the fossil is 68 million years old. How do they explain the fact that it still contained red blood cells? Their first instinct was to deny that it was red blood cells. Many believed it was misidentified or was possibly the result of contamination. This objection could not be supported for long because we've since found original biomatter in other dinosaur fossils It turns out to be somewhat common – it just wasn't discovered earlier because nobody was cutting fossils open to look for it. Since it really is original, soft tissue in the fossils, they have to explain it somehow. According to Smithsonian.com, “If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.... [this find is] showing us we really don’t understand decay.”

Hmm. Maybe we really do understand decay. Maybe we understand decay so well that we know these fossils can't really be 65 million years old. KC says scientists are “blank slates.” In this case, they refuse to consider the most obvious conclusion only to look for a solution that flies in the face of what we have learned through simple observation. Why? If scientists were truly blank slates, why won't they even consider “younger than 65 million years” as one possible explanation - especially knowing that even a dinosaur found alive today doesn't necessarily disprove evolution? It's because they have a vested interest in preserving their dating methods and any evidence that might contradict the assigned date of the fossil puts other parts of their precious theories in jeopardy. They're certainly not going where the evidence leads. Their theory is leading them around by the nose when it comes to interpreting the data.

Zealot followers of scientism stubbornly deny reality because of their religious-like commitment to naturalism. Nothing miraculous can be true. They will believe any outrageous theory regarding the origin of the universe besides special creation and for no other reason than creation is a miracle and miracles don't happen. Even where they have no other explanation for something, they still remain certain that God didn't do it.

This goes back to what I said in my introduction to this series: KC believes there is exactly one possible interpretation of the evidence – the natural explanation agreed on by a majority of scientists. He states as fact things he cannot possibly demonstrate scientifically (like matter being eternal) and paints anyone who disagrees with him as arrogant. Any argument made by a creationist, no matter how reasonable it may sound, no matter how well examined it may be, no matter how many credentials the creationist may have, can be valid. End of debate.

If you haven't watched the entire series, let me sum up every point made by KC like this: “We weren't created by God. Anyone who says that is just stupid and a liar trying to con you. Scientists don't have all the answers but that doesn't matter because you wouldn't be able to understand them anyway. Just trust us because we're brilliant and we study this stuff.” Oh, and while you read this, try to sound as condescending and obnoxious as you can possibly be and there you have KC's entire series.

Read the entire series:

Introduction

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Are creationists arrogant? A review of King Crocoduck's series: Part 4

King Crocoduck (abbreviated here as, KC) begins his 4^th video with this thought: “You know, the most remarkable thing about science is that it works.” What follows is a 9 minute diatribe about how it is only through science that we can learn about reality. I laughed out loud at 58 seconds into the video where he says, “Science works. Hate the method for being so rigorous – hate the conclusions for not conforming to your expectations – but do NOT deny its power!” He sounds like a super-villain.

At one point, KC says, “Theology and philosophy simply cannot compete with science if the goal is to construct accurate models of reality.” It's textbook scientism. PBS.org defines scientism this way:

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

Yep, that's KC to a tee! PBS is not a religion-friendly source and I disagree with their characterization that fundamental Protestants reject science but, I must say, I find their comparison of people like KC to religious zealots somewhat hilarious. I doubt KC would accept that label but, if the shoe fits, he should wear it.

KC's worldview suffers from many flaws, many of which I've written about before.  I can't cover them all again now but I will touch on some of the most obvious difficulties. Take morality, for example. Is there really such a thing as morality? Certainly the universe doesn't care what we do. Science can only describe what happens but can't say if a thing is right or wrong. What some might call “murder” is just one animal killing another. It happens all the time in nature and it's no more wrong than an apple falling from a tree. Theology and philosophy are far better tools for examining the reality of good and evil.

Science is also limited when examining history. Pick any person from history and try to prove – scientifically – that he really lived. The best evidence we have for people or events of antiquity is what has been written down about them. The evidence we have for the life, miracles, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus is the same type of evidence we have for Columbus having sailed to the Americas.

Speaking of miracles, scientism is also at a disadvantage when examining miracles. At about 6:27 in the video, KC says, “The bottom line is this: scientists don't interpret evidence in a manner that fits an a priori conclusion.” KC is wrong. Secular scientists do have a bias – an a priori commitment to naturalism. Consider this quote from Scientific American Magazine which I've cited on my blog before:

“Creation science” is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.

Now, there is no scientific reason to believe every phenomenon must have a natural cause. It's an assumption – a tenet that cannot be observed anywhere in the universe. So, if a miracle has occurred in reality, KC would have to deny it happened on no grounds other than his religious-like faith in scientism.

When it comes to interpreting the evidence, KC asserts, “I'm sorry, creationists, but we are not standing on even grounds. Not even close.” KC resorts to a typical tactic used by evolutionists which is to claim dibs on the evidence. He rattles off a bunch of items as though it's evidence only for his theories. One item on his list, for example, is “observed speciation events.” It's true that speciation happens. However, it's a lie to suggest that only evolution can account for speciation. Speciation is a critical part of the creation model. In fact, creationists are often chided with claims that a few thousand years is not enough time for speciation to happen. When we have observed speciation events, it's evidence that speciation can happen quickly – just as predicted by creationists. Furthermore, the speciation we observe are usually examples of the re-sorting of already existing traits via natural selection. It is not the trait-adding sort of change required for evolution.

The worst thing about scientism, though, is that it retards critical thinking. Skepticism is supposed to be at the heart of scientific inquiry. Once a majority of scientists accept any particular conclusion, it becomes, “settled science.” Any expression of doubt about the conclusion is met with ridicule, insults, and the label of being a “science denier.” This brings me back to the same point I made in my introduction to this series; KC is defining arrogance to mean disagreeing with the majority of scientists on the secular theories of origins. It's a blatant appeal to authority: “we're scientists – if you disagree with what we say, you're an idiot.”

Finally, KC conflates the theories of the Big Bang and evolution with all of science. In other words, because we've used “science” to eradicate small pox and put men on the moon, we must also believe in evolution and the Big Bang. At about 1:23, KC says this overtly, “The method that allows you to watch this video and hear my voice, is the same method that has been used to construct the theories that creationists deny. That these other theories have not had as much of an impact on our day to day activities as quantum theory or germ theory have, is irrelevant.” Let me say, quickly, that it's no small point that evolution has no impact on our daily lives. It's a trivial pursuit that is a huge waste of our resources and a waste of students' time in school. What's more concerning here, though, is how KC seems to link me watching his videos as evidence that men and apes have a common ancestor because it's the same scientific method that discovered both! You can see how that doesn't quite work.

Merriam-Webster defines arrogant as, “1. exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner. 2. showing an offensive attitude of superiority : proceeding from or characterized by arrogance.” Now, honestly, isn't that exactly how KC sounds in this series? I think that devotees of scientism are most arrogant people I've ever met. Perhaps I should do a video series on that!

Read the entire series:

Introduction

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 5