This article has been written in response to Geoff Chapman’s letter, which appeared, on the CADPAG website recently. He may think his opinions make sense but it is only fair that the parents of Northcliffe School get the opportunity to see just how wrong he really is.
I have responded to the Dawkins-Harries article with the following letter to "The Sunday Times"
Dear Sir, After reading the article jointly written by Dr Richard Dawkins and The Bishop of Oxford (Sunday Times, 20th June), I am puzzled by four things:-
(1) How Bishop Harries - who is supposed to be a defender of the Christian faith - can join forces with an atheist, who repudiates everything that even a liberal theologian like him believes, in order to attack the beliefs and motives of Sir Peter Vardy, a fellow Christian. The phrase "strange bed-fellows" comes to mind.
(2) How it can possibly be "dangerous" to teach young people that they were created by God, as an alternative to being the products of mindless, chance evolutionary processes. How can belief in creation possibly harm anyone?
(3) Why these two gentlemen insist that evolution is not a "faith position" when many well-known evolutionists have admitted that it is. For example, in his introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin, Prof. Harrison Mathews wrote, "Belief in the theory of evolution [is] exactly parallel to belief in special creation... a satisfactory faith on which to build our interpretation of nature", and in his book The Dogma of Evolution, Professor L T More wrote, "Our faith in the idea of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation." (emphases added).
(4) Sir Peter Vardy's schools teach both creation and evolution, so why are Drs Dawkins and Harries so opposed to allowing young people to think for themselves on this issue? If, as they claim, evolution really is supported by "mountains of scientific evidence", why do they regard the teaching of creationism as such a threat?
Yours faithfully Geoff Chapman (Director) Creation Resources Trust, Mead Farm, Downhead, West Camel, Yeovil, BA22 7RG
26th June 2004
Reply from Alan B.
G.C> Dear Sir, After reading the article jointly written by Dr Richard Dawkins and The Bishop of Oxford (Sunday Times, 20th June). I am puzzled by four things:- (1) How Bishop Harries - who is supposed to be a defender of the Christian faith - can join forces with an atheist, who repudiates everything that even a liberal theologian like him believes, in order to attack the beliefs and motives of Sir Peter Vardy, a fellow Christian. The phrase "strange bed-fellows" comes to mind.
REP> Geoff Chapman is keen to point out Dr Richard Dawkins & Bishop Harries differences, but I think the important thing for people to really understand is what they have in common, which is the belief that creationism is complete nonsense & should not therefore be taught in schools. Bishop Harries is expressing his concern that creationism is damaging Christianity and Dr Richard Dawkins is expressing his concern that it is damaging science. Sir Peter Vardy & Bishop Harries may both be Christians; however, they completely disagree over the issue of creationism. As you can see, once you know the facts, there is nothing strange about Dawkins & Harries collaboration at all, which is more than you can say for creationism.
G.C> (2) How it can possibly be "dangerous" to teach young people that they were created by God, as an alternative to being the products of mindless, chance evolutionary processes. How can belief in creation possibly harm anyone?
REP> (A) To start with, creationism goes well beyond simply teaching young people that they were created by God. In order to accept its central beliefs that (according to the most commonly held version) the entire universe was created around 6000 years ago, you have to reject whole areas of science. These include evolution, physics, cosmology, astronomy, geology & so on. The reason for this is that these theories point to a universe that is billions of years old as opposed to just thousands. It is obvious that it is not possible to hold both positions as true, so every young person who grows up believing creationism, is a young person who has rejected these branches of science.
(B) Schools do teach children about God. This has been traditionally been done in RE lessons where it is relevant. Now the creationists are claiming they want to start teaching their beliefs alongside & in competition with established science, as well as other areas of the curriculum. It IS dangerous to degrade standards of teaching in this manner & I personally do not see what is wrong in being allowed to say so.
(C) Evolution may appear to be mindless, but that unfortunately is just the way the evidence seems to suggest it is. Are we really going to have to force schoolchildren to learn nonsense, just because some adults do not like what reality is trying to tell us?
(D) Another misconception of the creationists (& people who have trouble understanding evolution generally) is that evolution is a Chance Process. Although evolution does involve chance, it also involves natural selection, which drives the whole evolutionary process forward. Dr Richard Dawkins himself dealt very well with this issue in his very good book, The Blind Watchmaker.
(E) Geoff Chapman asks how a belief in creationism can harm anyone? Well I can believe that the moon is made of cheese, which by itself harms nobody. However that should not give me the right to force my beliefs on schoolchildren as this nonsense would harm their education. The situation is even worse with regards creationism, which not only involve accepting untrue beliefs but also rejecting true scientific ones. Besides how long is it before another eccentric millionaire comes along wanting to teach say the stork theory of reproduction. The mind just boggles at the absurdity of it all.
G.C> (3) Why these two gentlemen insist that evolution is not a "faith position" when many well-known evolutionists have admitted that it is. For example, in his introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin, Prof. Harrison Mathews wrote, "Belief in the theory of evolution [is] exactly parallel to belief in special creation... a satisfactory faith on which to build our interpretation of nature", and in his book The Dogma of Evolution, Professor L T More wrote, "Our faith in the idea of evolution depends upon our reluctaice to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation." (emphases added).
REP> (A)It is worth pointing out here that rather than relying on evidence to back up their claims (because they have none) the creationists have resorted to a whole range of dirty, underhand techniques. The only aim of these being to undermine & discredit evolution in the eyes of the public who do not have the scientific background or knowledge to realise they are being deceived. One of the tricks used is to take quotes from academics (who are generally writing in support of evolution) & by carefully selecting chunks of their articles, make it appear that they are saying something different from what they really are. This is called “quoting out of context”. Another trick is to quote the opinions of academics that may have had brilliant careers as say mathematicians but who know no more about evolution than the janitor who empties their waste bins. Their generally unfounded criticisms of evolution are then quoted as if they carried the same weight as an academics with more relevant qualifications. Another trick is to quote from sources that are very old & whose contained scientific opinions are no longer relevant. More on this subject can be found at; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html It is here that we find out that Professor L. T. More was a Professor of physics who wrote his book, Dogma of Evolution in 1925! I have been unable to throw any light on the authenticity of Professor H. Mathews quote but even if it were quoted correctly, he would be doing no more than expressing a personal opinion, which I believe, would not be shared by any of his colleges. Finally, this quote was written in 1971 and in the last 30 odd years, the evidence in favour of evolution has hardened considerably.
(B) Finally the assertion by the creationists that evolution is a faith position (or even a religion) is a nonsense that they continue to repeat and then have to be continually corrected on. Believing things without any supporting evidence or worse still, in the face of contradicting evidence (as done by the creationists) is a faith position. This is NOT how science operates & it is just an outright lie to say that it is. This of course will not stop creationists from repeating that it is, years into the future.
G.C> (4) Sir Peter Vardy's schools teach both creation and evolution, so why are Drs Dawkins and Harries so opposed to allowing young people to think for themselves on this issue? If, as they claim, evolution really is supported by "mountains of scientific evidence", why do they regard the teaching of creationism as such a threat?
REP> (A) Creationism has no scientific validity whatsoever, so what is the point of teaching schoolchildren something that is certainly wrong in competition with something that is certainly right & then asking them to think for themselves to decide what version of events is true? Surely, all this is going to do is confuse them. This is just common sense. Worse still, as the true scientific version of events involves understanding relative difficult & abstract ideas that take time to master & the false creationist version of events requires only committing to memory a fairy tale comprehendible by an average 5 year old, it is likely that a significant proportion of children exposed to this highly dubious learning technique are going to end up growing up believing the false version of events.
(B) Creationism is based on what can described as a literal interpretation of Biblical texts which results in them being regarded as a source of absolute truth even if this happens to be in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. Therefore, in order to believe creationism an ability to think is not required, all that is necessary is a mindless ability to accept as true the creationist creed no matter how totally unscientific & ridiculous it may be. This is the very antithesis of “thinking for themselves” yet that does not stop the sinister Vardy Foundation propaganda machine from constantly making the thoroughly dishonest claim that it is.
(C) Evolution IS backed up by “mountains of scientific evidence” as are all the other scientific disciplines being undermined by introducing creationism into schools. There is no scientific evidence in support of creationism, NONE WHATSOEVER. Given these facts, did the Vardy Foundation really expect the scientific community to just roll over & play dead? Because if they did then they are even stupider than I thought.
Alan B, East Yorks.
Intelligent Design without Creationism, is like a bag of air, without the bag
Reply from Eric Martichuski
1) The very fact that a man of strong faith is joining with an atheist should demonstrate just how far from being a "fellow christian" Sir Peter Vardy really is. Just as there is a separation between "Church and State", there is also a separation between "Faith and Science"...a separation which benefits those on either side of the fence.
2) Creationism is "dangerous" when held up as a scientific discipline equal to physics, chemistry or astronomy because it undermines the fundamental principles with which all science is conducted. With a warped understanding of these principles, the children are left vulnerable to every other sort of bad, fradulent or pseudo-science out there. It's dangerous, frankly, because it promotes demonstrable lies. Not just about big things like the origin of life, but about every day, observable phenomena, across a wide range of disciplines.
3) Can we say "quote mining"? Two sentences does not an opposing opinion make...and I'm not sure how much weight it carries, but I've never heard of either person. Are they actually supporters of evolution? Might be a good place to mention Project Steve, in terms showing the fallacy of appealing to authority.
4) The teaching of Creationism is a threat because it's not presented in a critical manner. In fact, the very act of placing it beside evolution in a curriculum gives it undue credence. Students, in general, and especially in the lower grades, are given facts, they aren't called upon to weigh and interpret them. And when the "given" facts in support of creationism are so often twisted and downright false...and in ways difficult for an individual child to assertain or verify, then the whole process becomes a farce. The mere fact that the teacher is trying to present Creationism as equal with (if not superior to) Evolution demonstrates that the teacher is not putting forth an unbiased effort because any attempt to equate Creationism with science is fallacious from the get-go. It'd be like having a class on crystal healing properties at Medical School.
And this is where you'd hammer home all the ways in which Creationism fails to meet the definition of science, with no reference or comparison to evolution...just creationism itself on its own merits.
Eric
"There is no other wisdom,
And no other hope for us
But that we grow wise. -- Diane Duane
Reply from Bil Gladstone
G.C> Dear Sir, After reading the article jointly written by Dr Richard Dawkins and The Bishop of Oxford (Sunday Times, 20th June), I am puzzled by four things:- (1) How Bishop Harries - who is supposed to be a defender of the Christian faith - can join forces with an atheist, who repudiates everything that even a liberal theologian like him believes, in order to attack the beliefs and motives of Sir Peter Vardy, a fellow Christian. The phrase "strange bed-fellows" comes to mind.
REP> That it puzzles Mr. Chapman that an atheist and a theologian, when presented with the evidence in support of Modern Evolutionary Theory, can get along is no surprise. It is only a small fringe group of religious folk with an extra layer of socio-political agenda who cannot comprehend this.
(2) How it can possibly be "dangerous" to teach young people that they were created by God, as an alternative to being the products of mindless, chance evolutionary processes. How can belief in creation possibly harm anyone?
The author's use of the phrase "mindless, chance evolutionary processes" distinguishes him as sadly lacking in understanding the basic principles of life science, chemistry and physics. Chemicals interact in quite specific ways that have very little to do with chance. That these interactions are "mindless" is the ordinary state of the Universe.
Mr. Chapman also misunderstands (or understands but misrepresents) the process of evolution. Quite specific inputs from a changing environment upon a population will favour the passing-down of genetic traits (or mutations) that are most likely to survive.
How can belief in creation hurt? Passing along and promoting ignorance of science and of how the Universe is understood to work - ignorance as demonstrated by the author himself - is not just shabby and shameful, but also sets the stage for control of the ignorant by the charismatic.
When science is discounted, NO evidence is sufficient to rebut the cultists - religious or political. But, you see, this is precisely the circumstance desired by the religious right. This is harm immeasurable.
G.C> (3) Why these two gentlemen insist that evolution is not a "faith position" when many well-known evolutionists have admitted that it is. For example,<snip irrelevant>
REP> (a) The term "evolutionist" is objectionable to me. It was invented by creationists to attempt to lower science to their own level, and to obfuscate.
b) The portion I snipped out is what is commonly called "quote mining". This is a technique favoured by creationists and its primary purpose is once again to distract observers from the facts of evolution. These quotations are rarely other than out-of-context snippets, mis-quotations, or outright fabrications.
c) I should think that a Bishop of Oxford will recognise a "faith position" when he sees one, but just to further clarify for our correspondent, and stated simply: religion is based on faith; science is based on evidence. This is a differential test of a scientific theory. This is why creationism is *not* science: it has no scientific theory; it has no evidence.
G.C> (4) Sir Peter Vardy's schools teach both creation and evolution, so why are Drs Dawkins and Harries so opposed to allowing young people to think for themselves on this issue?
REP> Do you also advise young people "to think for themselves" on other issues too? Those points of light in the night sky, for example? Surely, you know that those are glittering diamonds, attached to the canopy of the Universe. A facetious example to illustrate that creationism dismisses science with a hand wave, in the face of two hundred years of exploration, discovery, and experimentation.
Schools exist to educate the young, because they do not possess the knowledge (and perhaps also the mental discipline of critical thought) to be able properly to interpret evidence. Until a certain level of education - scholarly or otherwise - has been attained, "thinking for ones self" is immaturity acting from ignorance.
G.C> If, as they claim, evolution really is supported by "mountains of scientific evidence", why do they regard the teaching of creationism as such a threat?
REP> There are suitable venues for the teaching of all religious faiths and their faith-based world-models: the home, the church, synagogue, mosque, etc.
But schools funded from the public purse, and more specifically, the science classrooms therein, must be considered religion-free zones. Without this firm firewall, we will be mis-educating our youngsters and raising a generation of gullible uncritical thinkers.
But wait another moment... this is precisely the circumstance desired by the religious right: a nation of ill-educated, uncritical followers to whom "evidence" means "what the pastor said" or "what the Holy Book said".
I am strangely reminded of Afghanistan and the Taliban...
Bil Gladstone
Reply from Michael Stuttkus
G.C> Dear Sir, After reading the article jointly written by Dr Richard Dawkins and The Bishop of Oxford (Sunday Times, 20th June), I am puzzled by four things:- (1) How Bishop Harries - who is supposed to be a defender of the Christian faith - can join forces with an atheist, who repudiates everything that even a liberal theologian like him believes, in order to attack the beliefs and motives of Sir Peter Vardy, a fellow Christian.
REP> Because Vardy isn't a fellow Christian, but a follower of a heresy called "literalism" that Christians have been trying to wipe out for quite a while. 1600 years ago, St. Augustine wrote in "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim" ("On the Literal Meaning of Genesis") that people who pretended that Genesis was a recording of literal events did nothing but make Christianity look foolish.
People of all religions who look at the evidence have come to accept common descent and evolution. Indeed, the pattern is rather striking. Throughout the world, people who come to examine the geology and biology have one of two conclusions:
1. They maintain that whatever religious background they came from was right all along.
2. They accept modern science, including evolution and common descent.
Note what doesn't happen. No Buddhists look at the evidence and conclude that the earth is 6000 years old. No Hindu look at the evidence and see a sign of Noah's Flood. If, as the creationists maintain, the evidence supports them, then it must be that *every* single person in the world outside of western civilization is close minded... but not so close minded that they don't have most of their scientists shift to evolution.
The Bishop and Dawkins may disagree on a lot, but they recognize that teaching lies in school is a bad thing. They know that children having a good education in the sciences is important for the growth of a country in our increasingly technological world.
G.C> (2) How it can possibly be "dangerous" to teach young people that they were created by God, as an alternative to being the products of mindless, chance evolutionary processes. How can belief in creation possibly harm anyone?
REP> Well, for one, creationism is a great maker of atheists. A large number of the atheists I know tell the same story, "I was raised as a creationist, but then I discovered that creationism was a lie when I learned about the evidence, and since Christianity depends on Creationism, Christianity must be a lie!" If you value Christianity, you should fight like crazy to keep people from being exposed to creationism. Like those who continue to insist that the earth is flat (all of whom are also creationists), they do not advance the faith, they only serve to make Christianity seem preposterous.
Teaching people that they were created by God is not contradictory to teaching the facts of evolution and common descent. Many choose to believe God guided the process or set it up initially. Despite the lies of creationists, this evolution is not anti-God and this debate is not religion vs. atheism, as the alliance of the Bishop and Dawkins shows.
What creationism teaches is harmful.
* Children taught that there is a limit to accumulated change, that mutations always reduce an organism, etc. will not understand the increasing problem of disease adaptation to antibiotics and similar issues.
* Children taught that humanity is unrelated to other animals won't understand how animal testing of medical procedures works, or how it works better with more closely related animals.
* Children taught that we don't have an evolutionary legacy of our own won't be able to deal with the problems this has left us with, such as our backs designed for four-legged life, our testes which form in the abdomen (as in reptiles) and leave holes behind as they move to their normal position in humans, or the genetic garbage we have in common with chimpanzees. Creationism ignores these facts, but I'd like the next generation of doctors to be trying to address them.
* Children taught the common creationist lie that you can't know something for certain without direct observation will be unable to understand how forensics works and will let murderers go in court.
I could go on for some time, but I'll finish with this. It is said that those who do not learn the lessons from the past are doomed to repeat it's mistakes. Creationism is all about denying the lessons of the past. Creationists do not learn from geologic history, and they do not learn from their own (or
they'd know that creationism has failed consistently in all scientific forums and endeavours). They are similarly doomed to continue engaging in error.
G.C> (3) Why these two gentlemen insist that evolution is not a "faith position" when many well-known evolutionists have admitted that it is. For example, in his introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin, Prof. Harrison Mathews wrote, "Belief in the theory of evolution [is] exactly parallel to belief in special creation... a satisfactory faith on which to build our interpretation of nature", and in his book The Dogma of Evolution, Professor L T More wrote, "Our faith in the idea of evolution depends upon our reluctaice to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation." (emphases added).
REP> This may surprise you, but just because two people said something doesn't make it true. I can dig up quotes saying that chess is a game of luck, but it's still false.
G.C> (4) Sir Peter Vardy's schools teach both creation and evolution,
REP> Impossible. The only way to teach creationism is to teach lies about the nature of science, to teach an utter misunderstanding of how science works. This is like saying, "We'll teach that the earth is spherical and that it is flat!" It makes no sense.
G.C> so why are Drs Dawkins and Harries so opposed to allowing young people to think for themselves on this issue?
REP> Computer people have a saying, garbage in, garbage out. No matter how good you are at logic, if your logic is based on lies, your not going to magically come up with truth.
G.C> If, as they claim, evolution really is supported by "mountains of scientific evidence", why do they regard the teaching of creationism as such a threat?
REP> Because they keep lying. Because they tell untruths like, "There are fossilized human footprints with dinosaurs" or "there used to be a magic canopy of water over the earth". They lie about the fact that we have found many hundreds of thousands of transition fossils (and we have).
If children are never exposed to the mountains of evidence because their teachers are in the business of lying about it, how are they supposed to reach correct conclusions?
Michael Stuttkus
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H.L. Mencken
Reply from Martin J Burn.
It was very interesting to read the 29th June comment by the Methodist minister Geoff Chapman. It provides perfect examples of the creationist tactic known as 'quote mining'. Also, as you will see, Chapman's comments exhibit logical fallacies, errors of omission and insidious dishonesty -- methods familiar to those who have an interest in biblical creationism/literalism and the lengths its proponents are obliged to take to indoctrinate anyone unlucky enough to be in their path. And of course, it is no surprise that in your case, children are at the top of their hit list.
'Quote mining' at its simplest level is the deliberate technique of misrepresenting an opponents view or argument whilst quoting material out of context. It can also be used in conjunction with the use of out-of-date material, proclaiming an author as expert in the field when such is not the case, deliberately lying, and such-like. It must be pointed out that creationists have no qualms in using such dishonesty, because it is central to the nature of their incredibly well-financed brand of overt christian fundamentalism.
Firstly, you will notice that Chapman uses (in his letter to the Times) the combination logical fallacy known as 'The No True Scotsman' argument. In this case he accuses the Bishop of Oxford in a round about way of not being correct in his version of Christianity. The implication being that the Bishop of Oxford is not a Christian at all! A quick glance at any philosophy website that includes explanations of logical fallacies will explain why Chapman's version of his faith is no more superior to that of the Bishop of Oxford's. The obvious conclusion being we should indeed take heed of the side that does not resort to demonstrable, illogical gain-saying.
It should also be noted that Chapman did not use his religious title when signing off his letter.
Secondly, with regard to the L T More quote, Chapman conveniently omits to mention that Louis T More (1870 - 1944) was:
- · A professor of physics (and Dean) at the university of Cincinnati.
- · Writing in the early 1920's. (The second edition from which the quote is mined was published in 1925.)
- · Accepting of evolution as a working hypothesis. (See p72: Numbers, Ronald L., The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, New York: Knoph, 1992.)
- · Neutral towards creationism. (Ibid. p370.)
- · Not a "well-known evolutionist".
So, according to Chapman, we are to accept (with regard to L T More) an argument from an unqualified commentator, written the greater part of a century ago, who accepted evolution but wasn't supportive of creationism anyway! Therefore, we must wonder why Chapman is 'quoting' someone who was as yet unaware of 80 years evolutionary biological discovery yet to happen. The answer is of course obvious.
The Matthews 'quote' is a little more difficult to untangle. Primarily because Chapman uses a quote from the introduction to the almost impossible to find 1971 edition of Darwin's 'Origins' -- which is wonderfully handy if you don't want anyone to check up on exactly what you are up to and the methods you use to do so!
A little research on the introduction to the 1971 edition shows us the full quote -- which starts on page x, concluding on page xi:
"Even 'Darwin's Bulldog', as Thomas Huxley once called himself, wrote in 1863:'I adopt Mr Darwin's hypothesis, therefore, subject to the production of proof that physiological species may be produced by selective breeding'--meaning species that are infertile if crossed. That proof has never been produced, though a few not entirely convincing examples are claimed to have been found. The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory--is it then science, or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
Notice how Chapman conveniently neglected to include Matthew's strong endorsement of evolution: "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology…". Even then, Chapman would have us believe the quote ends where he shows it. As can be seen, another sentence follows. Nevertheless, since Matthew's introduction, over 30 years of scientific research in biological evolution have taken place -- the major facts are established. And with the unravelling of the genetic codes of an increasing number of biological forms, the minor gaps in evolutionary knowledge are, within our lifetimes, slowly and surely being filled.
Biblical creationists have no qualms about using the deliberately dishonest tactic of 'quote mining' -- as has been shown above. However, they are not above using various other methods of misrepresenting an opponents position. A methodical search of the WWW for sites that explain exactly what they are up to and how they operate should prove very productive in your fight for the minds of the youngsters in your locality.
Finally, for a real insight into what Geoff Chapman really thinks, take a look at his biblical creationist website, I'm sure you will find it most enlightening:
Regards
Martin J Burn. “20 July 2004 (Posted to CADPAG & reproduced here).
Reply from Jim Taylor.
I'm extremely impressed with both Dawkins and Harries, that they were able to join forces against this common enemy of both science and Christianity; this bodes well for the future, at least in the U.K.
Science is equally open to people of all religions --or no religion--who are willing to look at the evidence and draw obvious conclusions.
Teaching pseudoscience in place of genuine science is a recipe for disaster in one generation, for any nation, which tolerates such nonsense.
And what is truly preposterous is the creationist claim that they are "the only True Christians (tm)", when in fact their entire theology is so heretical as to be inconsistent with *any* form of Christianity, be it Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox.
Were one to remove all the lies from creationism, nothing even marginally coherent would remain.
Jim Taylor.