Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole (11 page)

Gosse thought Adam had a belly button, despite the fact that a belly button might seem to suggest Adam had a mother. Gosse took a similar view about the trees in the garden of Eden, which he thought would have tree rings that might seem to suggest greater age. Gosse then extended this line of thought to the earth itself. The sedimentary layers strewn with fossils were created just a few thousand years ago. Like Adam's navel, they were put there not to deceive or to test our religious faith (as some have suggested) but because such creations will inevitably bear the hallmarks of a nonexistent past. “It may be objected,” Gosse wrote,

that to assume the world to have been created with fossil skeletons in its crust—skeletons of animals that never really existed—is to charge the Creator with forming objects whose sole purpose was to deceive us. The reply is obvious. Were the concentric timber-rings of a created tree formed merely to
deceive? Were the growth lines of a created shell intended to deceive? Was the navel of the created Man intended to deceive him into the persuasion that he had a parent?
¹⁴

Gosse concluded that the evidence provided by geology and other sciences failed to settle the age of the earth:
whether or not the biblical account was true, the earth would look just as it does.

A striking feature of Gosse's version of Young Earth Creationism is that, unlike the contemporary version we have been examining, Gosse's version is immune to refutation by geological and other natural sciences
right from the start.
It is, in this respect, much like Bertrand Russell's famous hypothesis that the entire universe, with us in it, was created just five minutes ago, but with the appearance of a much longer past (including, of course, our own false memories of that nonexistent past). Both versions of creationism achieve
consistency
with the evidence. But they achieve it in different ways. Gosse's version does so by virtue of its
content.
The currently dominant version of Young Earth Creationism, by contrast, achieves unfalsifiability through the use of
immunizing strategies.

To sum up: (1) Young Earth Creationism, unlike the theory of evolution and the theory that the universe is billions of years old, is not confirmed by the fossil record (or by anything else, for that matter); (2) Young Earth Creationism, as it is currently promoted and defended, is not only
not
falsified, it
cannot be
falsified (which is not a virtue in a theory, but a vice). Consequently, whether or not we want to call Young Earth Creationism “science” (and Popper would not), it's not
good
science.

BIASES AND PRESUPPOSITIONS

Let's now nail the myth that lies at the heart of the modern Young Earth Creationist movement. Young Earth Creationists will often cheerily admit that they endlessly adjust and develop their core
theory that the biblical account of creation is literally correct to make it “fit” the evidence. But they typically deny that this entails that their account is not at least as well confirmed as the standard scientific account. Why? Because they think that
those who believe in the theory of evolution and a billions-of-years-old universe are doing the same thing.

As a minister of a creationist organization explains, both the Bible-literalists and the evolutionists are doing no more than responding to the biases or presuppositions with which they start:

There were a lot of influences in Darwin's background which would lead him almost inevitably to the point he reached. His father was clearly an atheist. And certainly there was a background of disbelief in the Bible. And certainly there was a belief about millions of years that existed before him. He started his theories from that point. Now I have a clear bias. The Bible. And I admit that. But most scientists do not want to admit these kinds of biases that they have themselves.
¹⁵

Young Earth Creationists accuse the contemporary scientific orthodoxy of having its own bias—toward evolution in particular. Orthodox scientists are doing no more than taking whatever evidence shows up and making it fit
their
prior commitments. So they are, in this respect, really behaving no differently than Young Earth Creationists.

Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham concurs:

Increasing numbers of scientists are realizing that when you take the Bible as your basis and build your models of science and history upon it, all the evidence from the living animals and plants, the fossils, and the cultures fits. This confirms that the Bible really is the Word of God and can be trusted totally.
¹⁶

According to Ham, Young Earth Creationists and evolutionists do the same thing: they take the evidence and then look for
ways to make it
fit
the axioms of the framework theory to which they have
already
committed themselves: “Evolutionists have their own framework … into which they try to fit the data.”
¹⁷

It should now be clear why
Ham is misrepresenting what real scientists do.
Science is not essentially about achieving fit between theory and data. As we have seen, any theory, no matter how nuts, can achieve that kind of fit, including Dave's ludicrous theory that dogs are Venusian spies. What a scientific theory requires if it is to be credible is not merely
consistency with
the evidence but
confirmation by
the evidence—the stronger the confirmation, the better. That is why real scientists prefer
bold
predictions. They take risks with the evidence wherever they can.

As a result of taking such risks, scientific theories can be, and often are, falsified. Even theories toward which scientists are initially very strongly biased can be, and historically have been, shown to be wrong. Sometimes the theoretical framework with which scientists begin is shown to be mistaken, resulting in a major scientific revolution.

However, because real scientists are prepared to take such risks, their theories can be, and sometimes are, strongly confirmed. Today's Young Earth Creationists avoid such risks. Like Dave, they have adopted an immunizing strategy such that, no matter what's discovered, it's never going to be allowed to falsify their framework theory. One way or another, the evidence will be shown to “fit.” But then, because Young Earth Creationists take no such risks, their theory can never be strongly confirmed.

That Young Earth Creationists take no risks with the evidence is nicely illustrated by the following quote from proponent Bodie Hodge's “Why Don't We Find Human and Dinosaur Fossils Together?”:

If human and dinosaur bones are ever found in the same layers, it would be a fascinating find…. Those who hold a biblical view of history wouldn't be surprised…. Evolutionists, on the other hand … would have a real challenge. In the old-earth
view, man isn't supposed to be the same age as dinosaurs…. As biblical creationists, we don't require that human and dinosaur fossils be found in the same layers. Whether they are found or not, does not affect the biblical view of history.
¹⁸

Hodge makes no risky predictions regarding the fossil record. Whatever shows up will be consistent with
his
theory. Dinosaurs and humans discovered in different layers—fine. Dinosaurs and humans in the same layers—no problem. Hodge is quite explicit that neither discovery would constitute a “surprise.”

What Hodge fails to realize is that
it is, precisely, the Bible-literalist's lack of commitment about how human, dinosaur, and other fossils should be found that gives the theory of evolution a huge advantage over their own.
The bottom line is this: because the theory of evolution takes a significant risk with that evidence, it can be confirmed by it; because Young Earth Creationism doesn't, it can't. Young Earth Creationism is no more “confirmed” than is the Dave's theory that dogs are spies from the planet Venus.

THE BLUNDERBUSS

The strategy of making your theory “fit” the evidence and then claiming it is not, after all, falsified (and is perhaps even confirmed) is often accompanied by another rhetorical strategy that I call
The Blunderbuss
(a blunderbuss is a sort of early form of shotgun that flares out widely at the muzzle). The strategy is this: at the same time as you are employing “
But It Fits!
” to render your own theory consistent with the evidence, you fire off endless salvos of “problems” at your opponent's theory. Your salvos will comprise (1) a few real but largely
irrelevant
problems, and (2) various
invented
problems.

Almost every theory, no matter how well confirmed, faces puzzles and problem cases. This is certainly true of the theory
that life on this planet is a product of natural mechanisms. There remain unanswered questions. Currently, orthodox science is not able to explain how life initially emerged on this planet. Genetic and evolutionary theory can explain how living organisms evolve over time, but it cannot yet fully explain how life initially appeared. Not surprisingly, then, Young Earth Creationists bring up these kinds of questions at every available opportunity. The truth, of course, is this: that life has evolved over many millions of years by mechanisms including natural selection is nevertheless overwhelmingly confirmed by the evidence. This genuine and intriguing puzzle for orthodox science does nothing to throw that fact into doubt. Nor does it lend the creationist theory that the entire universe and everything in it was created six thousand years ago any credibility whatsoever. So this “problem” is, in truth,
irrelevant
to the debate between Young Earth Creationism and orthodox science. The impression that Young Earth Creationists try to create by firing off such “problems”— that their own theory has something going for it, scientifically speaking—is entirely misleading.

That was an example of a genuine puzzle that orthodox science cannot currently solve. However, the vast majority of “problems” with which Young Earth Creationists pack their blunderbuss aren't genuine problems at all. More often than not, they are
invented.

A nice example is
polystrate fossils
, such as vertically fossilized tree trunks. Young Earth Creationists will often wow audiences with dramatic images of fossilized trees that can be seen extended upward through many sedimentary layers. “How can our opponents explain
this
?” the Young Earth Creationists ask. “According to evolutionists, these sedimentary layers were produced over
millions of years
, far too long for this tree to have remained without rotting away! Clearly, this tree was buried by these layers of sediment very quickly. But that only makes sense with our flood theory!” One Young Earth Creationist concludes:

Such phenomena clearly violate the idea of a gradually accumulated geologic column since, generally speaking, an evolutionary overview of that column suggests that each stratum (layer) was laid down over thousands (or even millions!) of years.
¹⁹

Except, of course, the “evolutionary overview” suggests no such thing. It allows that trees will sometimes be buried very quickly by a series of sedimentary layers, for example, if located near a riverbank, a volcanic eruption, or area of rapid subsidence. This so-called problem for the “evolutionary overview”—which is also supposed to confirm Young Earth Creationism—is pure bunkum.

Sometimes the so-called problems for the theory of evolution are quite literally fabricated. Attend a Young Earth Creationist event, and you may well be presented with photographs of dinosaur and human footprints in the same sedimentary layer. The tracks are right there in a rock bed at Paluxy River—“proof” that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time! What those peddling these photographs don't usually mention is that the granddaughter of George Adams, the man who originally discovered the prints, admits her grandfather carved the human prints by hand to make money.

Young Earth Creationists have amassed a vast arsenal of such irrelevant or invented problems to fire off at their opponents in debate. It usually takes time and patience to deal properly with even just one example. Often it also takes specialist knowledge, knowledge that scientists working in another field may not possess. So it's often fairly easy for Young Earth Creationists to get their rivals bogged down, seemingly stymied by the “problems” they raise. “Explain
this!
And
this!
And
this!
” they say, and watch with mounting satisfaction as looks of confusion and desperation begin to creep across their opponents' faces.

As a result, Young Earth Creationists are able to generate the illusion that not only does their theory “fit” the evidence, their opponents face all sorts of devastating objections. The audience
to such a debate may depart, misled into thinking that, whether or not Young Earth Creationism is true, there at least remains a live, ongoing scientific debate.

YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM IN SCHOOLS

Young Earth Creationism has been, and continues to be, taught in schools. Often this is done covertly (I know of two British schools in which Young Earth Creationism has been taught by a science teacher without the knowledge or permission of the school or other members of staff—and one was one of Britain's leading independent schools). Obviously I object to Young Earth Creationism being taught in schools as a rival to orthodox scientific theories. People often object to the teaching of Young Earth Creationism on the grounds that children should not be taught ludicrous, obvious falsehoods, but that's not my main objection. My central criticism is this: teaching children that Young Earth Creationism is scientifically respectable involves teaching children to
think like Dave.
It involves getting them to think in ways that, under other circumstances, might justifiably lead us to suspect the thinker is suffering from some sort of mental illness. By allowing Young Earth Creationism into the classroom, we run not only the risk that children will end up believing ridiculous falsehoods, which is bad enough, but, worse still, that they'll end up supposing that the kind of warped and convoluted mental gymnastics in which both Dave and Young Earth Creationists engage is actually
cogent scientific thinking.
We may end up corrupting not just
what
they think but, more important,
how
they think.