Underhand Strategies

One of the most disturbing aspects of this issue is the dishonest manner in which advocates of creationism (For example John Burn & Nigel McQuoid) present their case. Many of their arguments have been developed by the American creationist movement & British creationists repeat these without any thought to their accuracy. In addition, they never seem able to give straight answers to simple questions, instead deflecting criticism with evasive waffle. Here are some of the strategies they use to mislead:

  • Play on the “Christian Ethos” of the school but don’t mention anything to do with creationism. In other words try to pretend they are doing nothing wrong.
  • Play it down, for instance say “that reports of the teaching of creationism have been exaggerated”.
  • Don’t answer the question. For instance, when David frost in an interview tried to pin down Nigel McQuoid on his beliefs on the age of the world, i.e. was it thousands or billions of years old, Nigel McQuoid responded by trying to cast doubt on the scientific evidence supporting an ancient universe. He did not answer the question.
  • Constantly try to undermine well established scientific evidence by claiming it is,
    • Controversial.
    • Only a theory.
    • A faith position.
    • Being thrown into doubt by “new evidence”.
    • A belief system just like creationism is a belief system.
    • Not believed by large numbers of people
    • Has serious defects
    • Damaging to a child’s mental well being
    • Liable to lead to crime, violence or murder.
    • Undermining Christianity.
    • Being questioned by scientists (quoting & misquoting).
  • Play on people’s fears. For instance keep going on about social disorder in a godless world (see list above).
  • Claim they are only presenting both sides of the story. This would be fine if both sides of the story were of equal merit, but they clearly are not. The story from the bible is obviously an ancient myth that has no merit as a description of reality whatsoever. The modern scientific theories (such as geology, evolution & cosmology) which so threaten the creationist (& their privileged position as unelected law makers) are in contrast, undisputable. Scientists may debate the finer details, but the conclusion that we inhabit an ancient universe is totally unassailable. Because these issues are relatively difficult to sort out even by adults it is wrong to present children with a blatant truth & a blatant untruth & then ask them to try to decide which one is right. Surely it is self evident that a sizable proportion of those exposed to this “learning” method are going to end up believing the biblical version of events, if for no other reason than because it is a nice little story that is easy to remember as opposed to the scientific facts that can be quite difficult to understand. It should also be equally self evident that this is the true reason creationists are so keen on presenting “both sides of the story”, i.e. to gain more adherents to their fundamentalist world view.
  • Claim they are presenting the scientific case for creationism. There is no such thing & to claim otherwise is just straight forward nonsense.
  • Call anyone who has the audacity to stand up to their stupidity, Fascists. Intolerant, Arrogant, Zealots etc.
  • Claim that science remains “tentative” as the Vardy foundation has done in a submission to parliament. This is wrong. Although some theories such as, String Theory are tentative, there are many others that are on the contrary, very well established. Yet for some strange reason the Vardy Foundation have seen fit to lump them all together. Firstly perhaps it would have helped if parliament had access to some of the statements made by members of the Vardy Foundation & its teachers. This would surely convince them that the Vardy Foundation is totally hostile to the teachings of modern science & its conclusions. In this light we must ask, what is their purpose in claiming that science is tentative? Well to me the answer is obvious. By generalizing in this fashion they are able to cast doubt on theories they don’t like, when in reality no doubt really exists.
  • Claim that they are only examining the controversy surrounding certain scientific issues. This is a good one, because there are numerous controversies they could mention, ranging from the likely cause of vCJD to the likely structure of dark matter. Yet whenever these teachers of creationism talk about scientific controversy, it invariably relates to evolution or some other area of science they do not like. Then they try to make it sound like there is a problem with it by highlighting so called controversies & suggesting it is only good science that children should be aware of its “problems” or “weaknesses”. However, there are no problems with theories such as evolution, they are perfectly sound. Scientists may argue over details but the core principles are never challenged. Of course you could claim that the attacks by creationists are evidence of controversy, but that’s not scientific controversy & is something that should be discussed in RE lessons. No, their only aim is to undermine & denigrate evolution & related areas of science.
  • Highlight what they say are gaps or weaknesses in evolution (though they are often no such thing), whilst at the same time totally ignoring massive amounts of evidence that on the contrary, verify it conclusions.
  • Claim that they are only trying to develop critical thinking skills in their pupils & explore the limits of science etc. On the face of it this is fine, after all much scientific progress is the result of people questioning traditional assumptions (a lot of them religious, although I do not think the Vardy Foundation will be quite so keen to point that out). Again however, of all the things they could be examining critically it just seems more than a little bit strange that they insist on keep talking about evolution, an area I know from reading their other literature (which they don’t make available to parliament) they totally reject. I believe that the only reason they keep going on about pupils examining evolution critically is because they would like them to reject it to. I would also like to point out two other things here. Firstly I find it absolutely amazing that the very people who have decided to make such a big deal in public about the need for a critical analysis of scientific principles are also the very people who are trying to usher in (via the backdoor of our schools) a blind and unquestioning acceptances of religious dogma & “absolutism”, which are the very antithesis of “critical analysis”. So how is it possible for an individual to hold such incompatible thoughts in the same head? Well, that brings me on to my second point & the answer is, “it isn’t”. The Vardy Foundation is an organisation run by people with a passion for authoritarian control & blind acceptance of religious dogma. Therefore I believe it is totally dishonest of them to keep going on about critical judgement in public because in private it is obvious that they do not believe in such a thing.

The Theory of Evolution forms the very backbone of modern biology, being universally accepted by biologists & most other scientists as ranking amongst one of the most profound scientific theories of all time. Given this, it is surprising to say the least to find the government supporting people who deliberately set out to impart to schoolchildren a most misleading & erroneous view of this important subject.