A letter published in Stellenbosch University’s independent student newspaper, Die Matie, 19 March 2008, Letters, Page 13 (a pdf can be downloaded from Die Matie’s archives):
Creationist’s message misleading
THE RECENT talk titled “Evolution – a Dark age for Science and Society?” by dr Don Batten is an example of a particularly worrying type of anti-science rhetoric.
We wish to respond to this dangerously misleading presentation’s message by mentioning four points, which should be relevant to all who attended and anyone who sees a conflict between science and religion:
1) Nearly every slide contained a gross scientific, logical or factual error. Worse, the talk was peppered with quotes from famous scientists who appear to slag evolution, without considering the context in which those quotes were made.
If this sounds contestable, please read a textbook on evolution, or the easily-accessible books by these authors. Most of them uniformly support evolutionary theory and such quotes should strike one as odd.
Batten twisted well-established concepts in genetics, physics and mathematics in an active attempt to undermine evolution, yet all these disciplines uniformly support it.
A completely random example: Yes, natural selection can and will decrease genetic diversity in dogs exposed to a new stimulus such as a cold environment, but it doesn’t generate that diversity – that’s the province of an entirely different mechanism: mutation. It is mutation that can lead to things like featherless chickens, long-haired dogs and variation among humans. Conflating natural selection and mutation in such a way is either deeply ignorant or actively deceptive.
2) Evolution is a fact. It has been observed multiple times. The theories about evolutionary change have been tested, altered, expanded and tested again for over 150 years by thousands of scientists from a variety of cultures and religions, yet the core concepts of evolution have never been disproven.
3) Batten argued that evolutionary theory led to the great ills of our times, including that usual gem: Hitler! Hitler misunderstood the concept and used it to justify his own megalomania. how is that relevant to the truth claims of evolution?
Of course the world was utopia before the publication of the Origin of Species. Try living without domesticated crops and animal foodstuffs, vaccination, biological control over pests and diseases or without the joy of pets and gardens. These all involve organisms modified by human-induced evolutionary mechanisms. Utopia?!
4) More than once, Batten referred to some shadowy Illuminati-type cabal of scientists (invariably atheist) who are “trying to take over the world” and are responsible for the social and moral decline that inevitably accompany evolution, leading us straight to Armageddon.
Does Batten know the actual religious beliefs of scientists? Many scientists are highly religious and see their work on evolution as an attempt to glorify their respective Godheads. The majority of Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and members of other major religions have no problem with evolution.
Why is Batten so scared of a human discipline that, by its very admission, cannot judge on the existence of God?
KENNETH OBERLANDER AND MAUD BONATO
Dept of Botany and Zoology
There was also an article on page five:
Creationist hosted by Shofar Church
Ivanka van der MerweDR DON Batten, a creationist research scientist, gave an interesting and controversial
speech about creation and evolution in a packed Sanlam Hall last week Wednesday.Batten, who holds a PhD in Plant Physiology and works for the Creation Ministries International in Australia, was hosted by Shofar Christian Church. Flyers around campus proclaimed that his speech, titled “Evolution – A Dark Age for Science and Society?”, would hold “solid answers for the real world!”
He began his presentation with the famous Gerald Massey quote, “They must find it difficult … those who have taken authority as the truth rather than truth as the authority.” He subsequently criticised schooling systems for teaching the theory of evolution “as if it were factual”.
He said, “Dating techniques rely on assumptions about the past that you cannot prove and are thus unreliable as you can do experiments on the present but you can’t do an experiment on the past.” He said anyone who claims evolution is the truth is “simply daydreaming about the past.”
Batten used many examples to illustrate his views on creationism, especially man-made marvels such as Mount Rushmore in the USA. He compared them to biological things we take for granted – DNA or the seemingly “simple” nucleotide ATP, which functions as an energy transporter within cells.
He then asked why, if we can attribute an unknown intelligent designer to the former, would it be so unreasonable to attribute such a designer to the latter, a far more complex thing?
Although he produced many arguments against the theory of evolution, Batten failed to back them up consistently with scientific evidence. Flyers advertised that he would answer the questions “If God is love, why do bad things happen?” and “What’s the point of life anyway?” along with many other that he simply never mentioned in his speech.
Although he is a scientist, Batten did not operate strictly according to the scientific method, which entails (amongst others) that one aims to replace current theories with newer, better ones. His talk focused on denouncing evolutionary theory, yet he mentioned very little about how an alternative theory might look.
Many of his arguments relied on creating reasonable doubt and then presenting that as evidence. He concluded that due to the complexity of even the simplest of cells, it is “the height of wishful thinking to think that natural processes produced life” and made the controversial statement that “evolution is anti-science”.
He did not go on to back up these statements with empirical evidence.
At the end of the speech there was an opportunity for the audience to ask questions, which Batten answered one by one and in straightforward terms.
When asked what intention God could have had in creating dinosaurs (since Christianity is a teleological religion, God must have known that they would die out), Batten responded that God created them as an expression of His supreme presence “for all to marvel at”.
In a further question about where the dinosaurs fit in on the 6000 year time-scale adhered to under Creationism, he explained, “Humans did live together with dinosaurs and there had been sightings in the past, but people referred to them as ‘dragons’ at that time.”
Batten has been involved with the Creation Science Foundation in Brisbane since 1994 and has coauthored books like “15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History”. The literature on sale after the speech attracted a very interested crowd.
That is a pretty sweet article from a journalistic perspective, touching on motives, emphasizing empirical evidence and the lack thereof in the seminar, and discrepancies between the advertising for the seminar and the seminar itself.
And yet, one wonders whether publicity is a good thing or a bad thing for these people. Fundies love publicity and controversy. They typically think that means they are battling the forces of evil, fighting them around every turn. It reinforces their belief that only they are right, and everyone else is deluded: newspapers, universities, scientists…
Not that there’s much you can do for fundies without an extraordinary amount of effort. It’s the fundie-leaning (but not quite fundie yet) people that I’d be careful about. That’s the kind that PZ and Dawkins may end up pushing over the edge, potentially polarizing the landscape further.
Whether that’s good or bad, would depend on the size of each of the groups in question.
UPDATE: What happens when you don’t research your claims properly? The “Expelled” movie is finding out. By using the “Hitler was inspired by evolution” angle, they opened a whole can of worms, big fat juicy worms, long slim slimey ones… Skeptico takes them to task, picking apart the nutritional value of this particular can: Evolution Not Responsible for Hitler.
·
21 responses so far ↓
1 PienkZuit // Mar 25, 2008 at 8:57 am
PZ?
2 Hugo // Mar 25, 2008 at 1:56 pm
PZ Myers of Pharyngula fame. He’s apparently the “Elvis Presley of Atheism”. A buddy of Dawkins, but actually much more “raving atheist”.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/clueless.php
You’ve got an unfortunate sharing of initials.
3 Kenneth Oberlander // Mar 30, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Thanks for bringing up the article Maud and I wrote…the original was quite a bit more vitriolic, but the Matie actually did quite a good job of editing it…kudos to them. I also enjoyed Juri’s piece in the Burger, but didn’t catch the other piece you were referring to. The Ivanka van der Merwe piece caught me unawares, but I did appreciate the way she managed to tear the talk apart whilst still being the voice of sweet reason…
I see you’re another Pharyngulite lurker…have you been following the Nisbet/Mooney debacle over the last few days?
4 Hugo // Mar 30, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I’ve seen just a little bit of the “debacle”, I only glance at Pharyngula now and then. If there’s good bits that I missed, you can let me know… (A friend sent me an email about PZ being expelled from Expelled!, which is what had me glancing at his blog recently.)
I like people like Nisbet. I don’t like PZ and Dawkins’ vitriole. They might influence “moderates”, but it will be counter productive with fundies. That takes away the middle ground, polarises culture further, while I believe a continuum is best. PZ writes:
The “bad cop” role… I do appreciate the bad cop role. It can be useful, but then you need some effective “good cops”. I wish Carl Sagan was still around, I like his approach. He had quite an impact, I think. (The “Cosmos” series in the early 80’s, in particular.)
5 Kenneth Oberlander // Apr 3, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Regarding the Nisbet/Mooney story, they basically reacted rather badly to PZ’s “expulsion”, which lead to much acrimony, which wasn’t really very productive. I don’t think they made their point, really, and were made to look rather foolish while not doing so.
I very much agree with your good cop/bad cop idea. I think both are devastatingly effective when targeted at the right people. But you need both. I tend to favour the PZ (PZed? PZee?)angle in principle, but not in practice, merely because I’m not that quick on the draw with snappy comebacks.
In fact, I don’t find the PZ/Dawkins camp particularly vitriolic. Dawkins in particular is the epitome of an English gentleman. PZ…well, he is more sarcastic than vitriolic, in my book.
6 -M- // Apr 9, 2008 at 7:39 pm
FYI, someone from the Department of Chemistry replied to us…*sigh*…it’s rather worrying than anything else…
7 Hugo // Apr 9, 2008 at 8:39 pm
A “response”? Do I understand you right if I think you’re saying there’s a creationist in the Department of Chemistry? Where is this reply? The next edition of Die Matie?
8 -M- // Apr 9, 2008 at 10:22 pm
See for yourself in the new edition of Die Matie that you can download on their website…
9 -M- // Apr 9, 2008 at 10:25 pm
In any case, to be continued…
10 Hugo // Apr 9, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Checking the letter…
Aaarrrgh! Friggen second-law-of-thermodynamics bullshit. Closed system? Sure… but how can you forget about the friggen sun?!
BTW, RLP has a nice post about the thermodynamics thing:
http://www.reallivepreacher.com/rlparchive/node/830
I trust you will do a good job of your next letter. I look forward to it.
11 Hugo // Apr 9, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I’d offer my services if I thought there’s anything to contribute. Maybe if I were in the area, I could help brainstorm the letter, but alas.
See you in May! Hopefully I can meet Kenneth as well.
12 Kenneth Oberlander // Apr 10, 2008 at 9:11 am
Believe me, there will be a response. The letter is effectively written.
Hugo, you might not like it…it is very PZ Myers in tone…
I can’t find the person who wrote this on the Chem Dept website. So I assume that she is a post-graduate student. There is at least one creationist on the academic staff in the Chem Dept, so I suppose that a reply from that side would be understandable. I am told that this academic used to teach 1st year medical students that the 2nd Law contradicts evolution. Does anyone else find this as disgusting as I do? No to mention that it is mind-blowing to think that a chemist could use the 2nd Law argument. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be laughable!
13 Hugo // Apr 10, 2008 at 9:42 am
We’ll see…
I’m sure I’ll enjoy it, even if it isn’t my style.
THE HORROR! That is absolutely disgusting, and an outright lie. Did anyone take him to task for such absolute horse baloney?
14 Kenneth Oberlander // Apr 10, 2008 at 10:46 am
Yes, apparently. I don’t know to what effect though. I still can’t figure out how a chemist can be so thoroughly clueless.
By the by, I got your email, but either our server is acting up, or my computer is dividing by zero again: I can’t send a reply, but will do so once I figure out the problem.
15 Kenneth Oberlander // Apr 18, 2008 at 3:55 pm
An update: I sent off Maud and my rebuttal to the Matie a few minutes ago…
Unfortunately, I couldn’t send the PZ Myers version…the Matie explicitly told me that they won’t accept personal attacks. Although I don’t think the PZ version constitutes a personal attack, and can defend my position, others would no doubt see it differently ;-).
So the version that got sent in was a more sedate, more polite letter…but I think all the more effective for it.
Although I still really like the PZ version…hehehe
16 Hugo // Apr 18, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I’d love to see both…
17 gloep // Apr 19, 2008 at 12:31 am
#6: The reply was from a chem person, married to a physicist.
It’s just, embarrassing.
18 Kenneth Oberlander // Apr 19, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Gloep, it is worse. This poor woman is incredibly ignorant. Worse, she is proud of it…she is basing her worldview on pseudofacts spun from whole cloth, and is perfectly happy with being that way. I have no problem with her believing this; she is perfectly entitled to believe what she wants. But to go and spread this ungrounded mythology as an attempt to evangelise…it revolts me. Not to mention how hard it makes teaching students who are too scared to mention the “e-word” because they will go to hell…
If only she wasn’t so arrogant in her ignorance, I would have a great deal more pity for her. As it is, I am torn between empathy and disgust.
19 gloep // Apr 20, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I’m glad I’m not in the position to have to teach the “e-word” to willingly ignorant students. Especially if they’re meant to be good little BSc’s. I would just make like one of my first year lecturers and throw chalk at them.
20 More Batten Seminar Coverage in Die Matie // Apr 30, 2008 at 3:49 pm
[...] first, published in Die Matie on 9 April, in response to Kenneth Oberlander and Maud Bonato’s letter in the 19 March issue: Evolution hardly ‘factual, observed, [...]
21 Do Any Shofarians Care About Science? // May 8, 2008 at 10:07 am
[...] Batten Seminar Coverage in Die Matie - A letter by Kenneth and Maud, and an article by Ivanka van der Merwe. [...]
Leave a Comment