(He neglected to mention that they used to have a real live geologist
too, but they sacked him and he now works for their competitors in
the Salvation-for-Sale stakes.)
Most of science,
eh? I rather think not, but it might seem that way to
Jonathan. He doesn't appear to understand very much about science, despite having quite a
high qualification in one of its many disciplines (though one that has nothing at all to
do with any of the fields that creationists like to misrepresent in their published
rubbish). Perhaps he should have stuck to designing paint, or whatever it was he was doing
before.
Well, I'm getting a bit long in the tooth for peeing up the wall games, but if that's the
way Jonathan wants to play, then so be it. Among the Skeptics' network we have hundreds of
medical practitioners and engineers, not that their skills are particularly relevant to
the argument. We can also call on the knowledge of dozens (each) of biologists, botanists,
chemists, physicists, astronomers, geologists, physiologists, anatomists,
palaeontologists, anthropologists, pathologists, entomologists, geneticists and
zoologists, among many others. But it is not so important that we have orders of magnitude
more practitioners of every science (and of considerably more sciences) in our network
than AiG can muster. The important distinction is that the scientists in the Skeptics'
network actually work in science. They work in universities, museums, industry and
government, doing research, keeping up-to-date with the literature, teaching students,
contributing ideas and knowledge, and generally putting to use the skills they have learnt
(at taxpayers expense) for the betterment of our society. The Skeptics' scientists have
not sold-out to become mouthpieces for far-out-fringe, quasi-religious marketing
organisations.
Incidentally, we also have quite a large number of psychologists who, while they might not
be qualified to point out how silly the creationists' arguments are (though, doubtless
most of them can, it's not all that hard), are well qualified to point out to this
merry band of five, how dangerous to their mental health is the cognitive dissonance that
arises when they fervently mouth pseudoscientific drivel that their brains tell them is
not true. And we have a number of theologians who could no doubt instruct Jonathan and his
mates in just how juvenile is their (mis)understanding of the Bible.
Now for a piece of free advice, meant with all possible best intentions.
If I were a management consultant I would advise the board of AiG to sack their small band
of people with qualifications in scientific disciplines, especially as these are of
dubious relevance to their enterprise. There is no need to have scientists (or even
"scientists") because the organisation engages in no science at all. The only
purpose they seem to serve is to recognise what the big words mean in newspaper reports of
science, thus enabling the organisation to misquote them in the publications they sell to
their cash-cows in their push to keep solvent. I would then advise them to hire a couple
of people with MBAs or some other marketing skills. That would seem to be much more in
line with the purposes of the organisation.
It hardly seems worthwhile to counter the gratuitous attacks that Sarfati makes on various
prominent Skeptics. They will be seen to be the same old tired (and often inaccurate)
tirades that his master, Dr Carl Wieland, has been trotting out for (seemingly) decades.
Like the Bourbons, creationists remember everything and understand nothing. (For
Jonathan's benefit, the Bourbons were a line of French kings, not a range of alcoholic
drinks.) I suppose, given that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we should take
some satisfaction for giving these literacy challenged folk the notion of "would the
real .... stand up?" Although it originated as the name of a panel show, Alex Ritchie
(a real scientist) first used it in this context, as the title of an
article about Dr Snelling
in the Skeptic several years ago. The creationists have been recycling the phrase ever
since. Which is not really surprising; original thought is not one of the skills they
value. (Come to think of it, I needn't have qualified that; thought itself doesn't rate a
premium in creationist circles - it's far too dangerous.)
I was amused to see that Sarfati thinks he is making some sort of revelation apropos me
when he says that I "admit" to having no scientific qualifications. I don't
"admit" it - I have never claimed that I did have any
- it is common knowledge, and wouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Nor has my friend Sir
Jim (who is away at the moment, and so is unable to defend himself against these limp and
pathetic attacks). In fact, Sir J has gone out of his way in a number of articles, to
eschew any knowledge of science at all, and I have no reason to doubt him.
However, Sarfati misses the point completely. One doesn't NEED any scientific
qualifications to refute the ludicrous statements creationists use to keep their poor
gullible and deluded followers in fear and trepidation, and the funds rolling in. We have
no need of scientific qualifications in order to expose their threadbare pretence, because
no science is used in creationist propaganda. Sure, the occasional scientific term is in
there to help keep the wool tightly pulled over the eyes of the followers, but no
science. All one needs to expose this is a broad general knowledge, and an ability
to see through grossly inaccurate and logically flawed arguments. Australian Skeptics has
hundreds of people who can do that.
Quite a bit of the twaddle Sarfati regurgitates here, he seems to have gleaned from the
"About our authors" column in the Skeptic. It will
come as no surprise to any of our readers that the information in this column is not
necessarily the exact literal truth (there is no evidence, for example, that Lloyd George
knew Sir Jim's father, nor indeed his mother). No doubt Sarfati is one of those earnest
souls who does not recognise literary licence when he sees it (hardly in doubt, given that
he seems to believe that the Bible, with all its internal contradictions, was personally
written by God on His Celestial IBM).
In this context, Sir Jim's exposure of Sarfati's article on fitting all the animals into
the Ark didn't NEED to be any more comprehensive than it was. The original article was
hilariously inept enough in itself. All that the good baronet had to do was to show that
Sarfati didn't have a clue about what it was he was seeking to prove, and he did that
admirably. Any more and we would have risked some of our older subscribers choking on
their dentures. I'm surprised that Sarfati keeps bringing this item up. If I'd
written something as silly as he did, I'd be tempted to claim that someone else wrote it
under my name in order to discredit me. But perhaps he still thinks it was good
scholarship? (Which wouldn't surprise me for a minute.)
I'm astonished, however, to see him bringing up the case of Mrs Smith and the Baptist
Union election. This is one of the most discreditable episodes in the creationists'
entire, less-than-honourable, propaganda campaign. Despite the spin Sarfati seeks to
put on it, it was far from being a sign of Baptists rejecting a candidate because of the
(supposed) sins of her husband. In fact, a stooge of the creationist camp sent a grossly
defamatory letter about Helen and Ken Smith to a number of people who might have had an
interest in voting in the election (which I understand is a voluntary procedure)
attacking her candidacy. A kindly mole in the creationist camp also sent a copy to me, and
I alerted the Smiths to its existence. They had heard about it, but hadn't seen it at that
stage. To their very great credit (and to the utter disgrace of the creationist fringe)
many members of the Baptist Church passed on copies of the letter to the Smiths, while
expressing their disgust that such a dishonourable thing could happen in a Christian
congregation. It is astonishing to see a creationist actually boasting about it (or
perhaps it's not so surprising, after all).
On one level the whole creation "science" movement is just
a sad, sick joke and we should feel nothing but sympathy for the unfortunates who are
taken in by it. It IS a joke to science, and it IS an embarrassment to the Christian
religion. But examples like that above show that beneath the surface it can be a very
nasty cult indeed. This is a cult that preaches fear and hate, and which vigorously
markets ignorance as its main stock-in-trade. These are precisely the dark aspects of the
human personality that once led to the brutal excesses of Nazism and Communism that
Sarfati and his cohorts, in their gross ignorance of history, pretend are caused by an
understanding of evolution.
Yes, creation "science" is a bad joke but, left unchallenged, it could easily
develop into something much more nasty and dangerous. However, it won't be able to
flourish as long as thinking people, with a wide range of personal beliefs, keep exposing
it to the light of critical reason. This site is helping to do just that. Well
done.
Barry Williams
Editor
the Skeptic
