Why Take Creationism Seriously?

It's more than easy to dismiss creationism; it's a lot of fun. Dinosaurs and humans living side by side in perfect harmony? The idea is laughable. No one could possibly take it seriously. Some creationists do. They've driven the punch line home by building life-sized, animatronic replicas of our ancestors and the big beasts in their museums, depicting the two occupying the same land during the same time in human history. In a creationist museum, you may also find on display petroglyphs that depict people riding the backs of Triceratops, as well as fossils from a lost race of human giants. Creationists do serve a purpose it seems. For those with low self esteem, they offer a quick ego-boost. For others, they're there for a good laugh. And for this blog, their ideas will be the center of attention.

Creationists are not funny to Richard Dawkins. The leading evolutionary biologist, best selling non-fiction writer, and prominent activist for science and reason considers creationists a tremendous distraction. Despite numerous requests, he's consistently refused to debate one (a creationist author could only hope for such publicity). Would a self-respecting scientist make time in his busy schedule to debate someone who still claims that the Earth is flat? Certainly not. This is precisely how Dawkins views creationist "science": a living fossil from a more primitive, ignorant time.

This is not to say that Dawkins has avoided the topic. Rather, he's authored several books that could be considered direct refutations of creationism. If a biblical literalist wanted to discover how his beliefs are incompatible with reality, they could do nothing better than to pick up a copy of The Selfish Gene or Unweaving the Rainbow and read it from cover to cover. Understanding is what Dawkins gifts his readers. When one deeply understands the complexity, interconnectedness, history, and general nature of life on this planet, it becomes impossible to consider the Biblical record of these things more than a bad joke.

When it comes to dealing with Creationism, Dawkins can claim to have been there and to have done that. There are exciting new scientific discoveries and insights to occupy one's time with. And of course there are new and exciting things yet to be uncovered. There's plenty of work to do. Dawkins is simply too busy and overqualified to dwell upon absurd, outdated, unscientific claims.

As a Boise State graduate who sells bikes for a living, I can confidently say that I am NOT overqualified to address creationist claims. Plus, my schedule is not nearly as full as Dawkin's. I received no invitation to speak at the Reason Rally in Washington, DC, I have no debate on the calendar, and I'm currently working on zero books. I've got time on my hands. For more than one reason, I've decided to sacrifice my not-so-precious hours creating this and upcoming blogs dedicated to the deconstruction of creationist "theory" and "science".

Why spend time thinking, reading, and writing about an interpretation of natural history that sees nothing wrong with humans riding the backs of Triceratops? For one, I'm fascinated by ideas that remain popular in spite of overwhelming contradictory evidence, the existence of meager supporting evidence, or the complete absence of evidence. Such are religious claims. I'm not biased-I'm equally enthralled with non-religous ideas that are also "sticky"-so much so that society has a hard time shaking them off.

Ideas can be perceived as having a life of their own. Some are especially good at clinging to minds, spreading from person to person, and even evolving to fit their ever-changing environments. There's a new, useful word for talking about neatly packaged ideas that spread and evolve through society: memes (pronounced like "genes"). I hope that one day people are as aware of the infectious nature of ideas as they are of weather, politics, or human physiology. The word "meme" helps make this awareness possible.

Today, children learn that two plus two equals four and that "car" is a noun. But I doubt that children learn how their minds respond to ideas. Its more than simple psychology-its the study of memes; how ideas can have a life of their own and come to inhabit brains that are not properly readied to defend against them. Comparing ideas to viruses may sound paranoid and extreme, but the proposal I'm putting forth is nothing more than teaching children to be skeptical, aware, discerning, and thoughtful. It's the realization that we are not insular beings; rather, we each swim in a veritable sea of ideas that are all fighting for our attention and our allegiance. It's a major component of teaching kids how to think instead of what to think.

We live in a society which grabs tightly to its remaining myths and popular comforts with a military fervor. Traditional ideas are protected from challenge behind great invisible walls of social norms and structure. Simply questioning the reason for an old idea's existence is an affront to those who hold it sacred. Why would parents teach children anything that threatens to sever personal and cultural relationships which form the basis for traditional societies? Perhaps there's something wrong with tradition and the way people currently think about it. Perhaps not. The first step in finding out is admitting that we can become loyal to memes not for their ultimate usefulness or truth; but simply because they are tradition, or because they appeal to our emotions, or they're easily understood, or they're promoted by authoritative institutions, or because our parents and friends believe them, etc, etc. These are all ways we are bound to ideas in spite of their actual truth or utility. The more of these chains we break, the freer we are to think, act, and make peace with our universe as it really is.

The fact that creationism exists and is still taken seriously by millions of people is fascinating. Its proof that we still live in an age of myth despite the pervasiveness of scientific knowledge, widespread literacy, and modern means of communication. Like some diseases; hundreds of infectious, false memes have been eradicated from human belief, but the ones that remain are especially hardy. Hopefully soon, humanity will rally around the cause of ridding the world of allegiance to virulent, dangerous, and false ideas. While a war of arms is an inexcusable evil, a war of ideas is stimulating at worst and heroic at best. Who wouldn't want to be a part of it?

Another reason why I find creationism worth talking about is because it's highly offensive. Scientists of all stripes have not committed millions of hours of their lives working in the field, lab, classroom, and office to have a group of religious nut-jobs create a "scientific" theory whose sole purpose is to validate a few versuses of ancient text. Creationism should be personally offensive to scientists and it should be offensive to every truth-loving, deception-hating individual. This ought to mean you. My own attitude is; "don't fuck with the truth." If anything can be held sacred, it's truth. Purposefully distorting it is evil. Creating a vast web of misinformation and lies to achieve selfish goals is nothing short of a crime against humanity.

This doesn't mean we can't ask honest questions-even all encompassing ones. What if all of THIS is a lie?? What if everything we know is wrong?? Maybe the scientific consensus itself is some kind of grand conspiracy? The possibility is another reason for giving wild claims some of our time.

I love questions like these. We can pursue the answers without abandoning our intellectual integrity or our sanity. If someone said that we actually exist in an expansive, elaborate television studio and that every one of our words and movements are recorded as part of a reality program (see The Truman Show); by all means, I'd say, let's take look into it. Why not? If we find the claim compelling enough, or we see some evidence to support it, or we simply want to have a little fun, we could go out searching for the edge of the studio. We could listen for the voices of the program's director on the radio. We only begin to look foolish when our efforts turn up no evidence and we continue to take the claim seriously. And the worst move we could make is to become a champion of a claim when no support for it is found. At that point, we risk being compared to a crazy man mumbling to himself about alien abductions and government conspiracies. Other's would have good reason to see us in such light.

So yes, let's stay open-minded; just not so much that our brain falls out (as the saying goes), and not out of bounds of a scientific methodology. Some of the world's most brilliant people have marveled at how little there is that they don't know. If we're open minded, we'll admit the same. We could be wrong about something we feel strongly about (I know I have been before). Moreover, the consensus in society-and even in science-could be way off track. History has shown that such mistakes are possible. While the accumulated knowledge of science has bolstered present conclusions and weakened old ideas, we are not safe from being wrong.

This doesn't mean that we can't know anything with great certainty. There's no need to adopt a pervasive weak-minded agnosticism towards every utterance. Scientists have been busy for a few hundred years constructing a solid foundation of facts that we can all feel comfortable building our lives upon. While scientists have their heads in the facts, we're allowed the luxury and entertainment of placing our heads in the clouds, looking at the big picture, constructing purposes for ourselves and our children, and, from time to time, questioning everything we're told.

I'm excited about discovering the occasional lie and finding gems of truth. Life is like one big detective story. What if we're actually "brains in vats" or just characters in someone else's dream? What if there IS a god in heaven with a plan for us? What if we WILL be reincarnated? What if we live in a vast Matrix. These ideas are highly improbable but they're entertaining to think about (or make a movie about). Again, why not conceptualize an alternative reality and put it to the test (if we have time on our hands, of course)?

More pressing is the notion that we could be wrong about something very important. There were millions of Germans who were wrong about fascism and millions of whites wrong about slavery. Some mistakes cost those who made them while some mistakes turned other people into victims. Either way, I hope that I'm not currently believing something or doing anything that will be considered harmful or immoral in a hundred years or so.

For these reasons, a person will always get my attention when they say something like, "everything you know is wrong." Implicit is the claim that they possess a certain amount of knowledge that I don't. I'd like to hear what it is. Pride is more likely to get in the way of discovering truth-its best left out of the interaction. If someone says "you're wrong", the best answer is "really? how?".

We shouldn't rely on others to point out that we may in fact be wrong about something. We need only reverse our thinking and challenge ourselves. For example, earlier I declared that if creationists wanted to see how their beliefs are incompatible with reality, they need only read one of Richard Dawkins's books on evolution. Well, I can very easily imagine the same kind of statement coming from the other side: If I would just read an authoritative book on creation science, like The New Creationism, by Paul A. Garner, I would see how my views are not supported by the evidence, and how the Bible offers an accurate depiction of true natural history.

I admit it, I could be wrong. What necessarily follows is acquiescence: I will read the book. In fact, I'll go one further and attempt to dissect its arguments and put them to a test ("a test" instead of "the test", because I won't presume to destroy all creationist claims). In the end, no one will be able to say I didn't treat their ideas with respect and real consideration.

Perhaps the most compelling reason to grant creationist more of our attention is the simple fact that over a billion people still believe the Bible to be the literal truth. We're not talking about a simple kind of belief like "I believe the world is round", or even "I believe its wrong to punch people in the face." Bound up in the belief of the religious is some level of commitment that involves a willingness to sacrifice one's own happiness or life for the purposes of a god, prophets, chosen people, sacred text, and even holy symbols. What is religious belief without this sometimes quiet, sometimes overtly influential inner-martyr?

No, traditional religion does not hold a monopoly on self sacrifice or genuine martyrdom. I, like so many of my relatives and countrymen, might feel compelled to sacrifice my own life in defense of my family or "sacred" values like liberty. We must then ask how my inner-martyr is any different from that of a religious adherent? Do the values that give me reason to kill others or myself deserve to be eradicated too (as though this is the only reason to oppose false ideas)?

In order to avoid a long tangent, let me just say that it has to do with the fact that family and freedom are solidly rooted in this world-they are real things-whereas religious values are by definition beyond this world. Worse, religious values are inherently tyrannical-they emanate from the service of a king-like god. Whether or not they serve to make our lives happier or healthier is incidental. Benefits for us are secondary to the larger purpose of worshiping a god and submitting to his will. There's a lot wrong with worshipping gods, not the least being that they're made up. It goes without saying that there's a big difference between valuing one's own life, freedom, and family, and valuing something purely imagined.

What people desire at a base level is universal. What people wish to avoid is, likewise, universally felt. Insert gods into the mix, and hypothetically speaking, a god could command anything. Thus, gods are bound to pit man against himself, unless of course his interests just so happen to coincide with ours.

For hundreds of years, priests and preachers have kept religion relevant by putting the Bible to use as a self-help book. Before tyrants were overthrown and people asserted their own rights, there was no need to alter the religious message of strict obedience and sacrifice to God. Subjugation used to be easy and routine. With the steady decline of physical and mental tyranny, common man has had to discover his own interests, define his own values, and assert his own rights.

So much for avoiding a tangent. The point can be restated as such: Hundreds of millions of people hold a strong level of personal commitment/connection to a blatantly made-up and false description of history and reality. From the old text's terrible stories, most of these people derive their moral codes and realize their life's purposes. Such an allegiance between nonsense and humanity can only lead to additional problems for a world that has otherwise left primitive notions behind.

Finally, believing fairy tales as adults is embarrassing. Believing that dinosaurs walked along side our ancestors is shameful. Naturally, I don't want my beloved friends, family, and fellow man embarrassing themselves.

Let's not be the punch-line of a joke. Let's commit ourselves to ourselves instead of a made-up god. Let's ground our beliefs in reality and dispel false claims and reasoning. Let's not piss off scientists (I hear they can be ferocious). By having a look at the evidence and logic put forth by creationist Paul A. Garner in The New Creationism, and by giving the book a critical treatment, we'll be one degree saner and a few degrees further away from the crazy guy mumbling to himself.

Next post: Why beauty, size, and complexity tell us nothing about the universe.