This is what happens when you mix science and religion

Dr. Hugh Ross is full of shit.

Sure, he’s obviously a smart guy. He knows a lot about science–Astronomy, Mathematics, etc… But he’s also a biblical literalist, and what’s worse, he’s trying to support the one with the other.

Dr. Hugh Ross is full of shit.

Sure, he’s obviously a smart guy. He knows a lot about science—Astronomy, Mathematics, etc… But he’s also a creationist, a biblical literalist, and what’s worse, he’s trying to support the one with the other.

Last night I went to a debate sponsored by CFI and Reasons to Believe: “What’s right and wrong with Christianity?”, taking place at Tenth Avenue Church. Dr. Ross took the “right” side and spoke first, basically blathering on about how modern science fit so well with the biblical creation story, therefore it has to be true. Humans are so unlikely, what with our big brains with no survival value, therefore we must have been designed. Christianity is unique, therefore etc… And so on.

All this delivered at a well-rehearsed breakneck pace, too fast for the audience to do more than go “wait… what?” before moving on to the next bible verse or pretty graph or inspirational urban legend. It was dizzying, frustrating, incredibly condescending, but really not that surprising. I didn’t know Dr. Ross, but I’d read and heard similar “christianity is right and other religions are wrong neener neener” arguments before and, honestly, theists never come up with anything really new.

Which is actually okay, for his usual audience. Because even though last night the people filling the pews were mostly atheists and skeptics, I had the definite impression Dr. Ross was only used to preaching to the choir. Everything he said was designed to appeal to Christians, to reassure them that their beliefs were right. There was nothing there for nonbelievers, or even believers of other faiths. In fact, he kept using loaded terms, like “atheist scientists,” that implied a definite us-vs-them attitude. I’ve seen that before, too, in that creationism vs evolution debate a few years back.

Brian Lynchehaun (who I remember from Skepticamp), addressing the “wrong” side, didn’t go into historical truth or scientific truth, though he easily could have. His speech (much shorter, less rehearsed) dealt with the morality of Christianity; his thrust was that the Bible was not a perfect moral code. In fact, it wasn’t even an especially good one. Its commandments are inconsistent, and its elevation of faith is dangerous because it leaves you open to a whole slew of scams that wouldn’t work on skeptics.

This is what happens when you don’t keep religion and science separate: leave the door open for God or mysticism in your theories and you’re opening a Pandora’s box, because there’s no end to what you can put in. You say Jesus’ body was never found? Maybe the apostles took him. Maybe the Pharisees took him. Maybe he rose from the dead. Maybe he was beamed up by time-traveling Christians out to clone a Messiah 2.0. Mr. Lynchehaun did point out that “God” as an explanation is no less silly than “superpowerful little green men.”

But Dr. Ross isn’t even doing that. He doesn’t respect science, he’s just whoring it out to service his pre-existing beliefs. He’s wrapping the bible in a white lab coat to give it extra prestige for his ignorant flock, thereby twisting and demeaning both spheres. And it’s ironic that he and his audience even want a reason for believing in Christ. What it tells me is that, if they seek (pseudo-)scientific justifications for their faith, then it’s probably a pretty weak faith to begin with, and they’re willing to grab at any straw to hold their house of cards together*. Frankly, I’d have a lot more respect for Christians if they just appealed to simple faith to defend their beliefs. They’d still be wrong, sure, but at least I’d respect the honesty.

(* Apologies for the mixed metaphor)

Evolution vs. Creation: War of the World Views

I confess, I’d never been to a creation/evolution debate before. Oh, I read up on a few big ones, and of course I’ve done my share of arguing on the Net. And I did attend a talk, way back when, at Ottawa U, on scientific evidence of design in nature pointing to the Biblical God. I was probably still going to church at the time, and had never read any creationist literature before, but I could already tell this twisting of science, logic and Scripture, was pure crap.

I confess, I’d never been to a creation/evolution debate before. Oh, I read up on a few big ones, and of course I’ve done my share of arguing on the Net. And I did attend a talk, way back when, at Ottawa U, on scientific evidence of design in nature pointing to the Biblical God. I was probably still going to church at the time, and had never read any creationist literature before, but I could already tell this twisting of science, logic and Scripture, was pure crap. A few years later at SFU, I went to a couple of events organized by Out on Campus, attended by a mixed group of queers and fundy Christians: “Beyond Homophobia” (a panel discussion on gay-positive Christianity), and a talk by Marc Adams on growing up gay in a fundamentalist environment. I remember it was always so easy to tell the queers from the Xians in the audience, and not just because I knew most of the former group personally. The Xian boys were just a bit too butch, and the girls just a bit too girly. Good times, good times.

So, last night was a first for me: a real formal debate (entitled “War of the World Views”), organized by the BC Skeptics with invited speaker Richard Peachy of the Creation Science Association of BC. This organisation seems to be composed of Young-Earth creationists who believe the Bible is literally true, that the Earth was created in six days just a few thousand years ago, that there was a worldwide flood, and of course that all creatures were made in their present form and can’t change. You know, I didn’t like to believe there were any full-blown creationists in Canada. I mean, that’s a US phenomenon, and aren’t we supposed to be better than the USA? Oh, sure, we’ve got some scary-ass churches out in the boonies, and our own (imported) versions of the Christian Coalition, and Campus Crusade for Christ, and… Damn. Okay, maybe we’re not so much better.

I got there about 15 minutes early, and already the auditorium (seating maybe 400) was three-quarters full. By the time the debate started it was more than full, with a bunch of people sitting in the aisles. I had fun trying to tell the skeptics from the creationists. One guy’s t-shirt a few rows in front of me caused me a bit of confusion. It read, “And God said…” followed by Maxwell’s equations, followed by “And there was light.” Ironically nerdy, or a fundy pretending to scientific literacy? The front of the t-shirt had a wireframe representation of a Black Hole with the formula for the Schwartzchild radius, which… didn’t answer the question. Oh, well.

As expected, all the creationist side had to offer was a round of pathetic attacks on evolution: some vague soundbites about mutation and natural selection being random and destructive, plus out-of-context quotes from various evolutionary scientists (Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Francis Crick, Martin Gardner) but no creation scientists. No positive evidence for creationism was presented, except lots of Bible verses. And it was pretty clear Peachy’s never had to debate with skeptics or scientists. All of his language, his use of the words “they” and “Evolutionists” and “Darwinists,” indicated he was only used to preaching to the choir. Later questions (mixed with some pretty heavy preaching) from creationist audience members weren’t any better, beating dead horses like polonium haloes, Darwin’s alleged racism and the perfectly fine-tuned universe… Bah. This isn’t science. It’s not even good religion. It’s nothing more than willful ignorance, and using their holy book as a security blanket against the big bad confusing world.

Scott Goodman (representing BC Skeptics) also gave an iffy presentation, though in different ways. He spoke very fast, and his tone felt a little… off-putting. I think he tried for “comedic” in a few places, but landed on “flippant, bordering on obnoxious.” Not that I’d have done much better in his place, but I had expected him to be a bit more polished since he’s dealt with creationists before. His presentation mostly discussed some general kinds of arguments used against evolutionary theory—Argument from Ignorance, Argument from Belittlement, and so on—which may not have been the best approach: skeptics would already be familiar with them, and fundies might find the whole thing condescending and tune out. He was more aware of the mixed nature of the audience, though, and made the excellent point that for most Christians, there is no conflict between their faith and science. This is something creationists need to hear, I think. Peachy said at one point, “The Bible supports ethical science for the glory of God,” or words to that effect. It’s creationists for whom this is a religious issue, it’s creationists who are on the offensive, because evolution—in their eyes—denies the glory of God.

Honestly, part of me was hoping for some crazy Xian freakshow, with brimstone and hellfire and ranting, but none of that happened. All I got was very smooth, very polite fanaticism (which actually made it even more disturbing) along with the same old arguments I’ve heard a thousand times before, from one side and the other. It was interesting to see the opposition face-to-face again after so many years, but also a bit depressing because they haven’t changed. They’re still repeating the same dogma, the same clichés, the same lies (there, I said it) and there’s no sign that’ll end anytime soon.

Did this debate accomplish anything? Well, I don’t expect any minds will be changed. Maybe it was the creationists in the audience who got the most out of it, though. I imagine it was good for them to hear some real scientific information and skeptical arguments, unfiltered by their church. Hopefully a few seeds of doubt have been planted, though it’ll probably be years (if ever) before they bear fruit. But on the bright side, if the creationists don’t listen, if they continue their crusade, at least we’ll have people like Scott Goodman and the BC Skeptics to hold the line.