Intelligent Design Creationism And The Erosion Of Trust

by tristero

Via PZ Myers, I've been keeping abreast of the latest rebuttals to the arrant nonsense of various creationists, like William Dembski and Michael Behe. Here's a link to PZ's latest, which refers us to this post, one in a series where SA Smith challenges Behe's competence in the HIV research in which she is expert.

Until very recently, I could follow, sometimes with difficulty, most of the actual arguments being made, and the rebuttals by scientists. Things like the notorious bacterial flagellum, the peppered moths, and so on - the discussion got tricky but it wasn't impossible. The mistakes in reasoning by id creationists are so egregious that a scientifically inclined 10 year old could easily see them, as could any layperson who spent a little bit of effort. But reading Smith's post on HIV evolution, I have to confess I can't for the life of me understand it. Ms Smith, I promise I'll spend some more time on it later and try to puzzle it out; I like that kind of a challenge (and please don't bother rewriting it for civilians, you've got better things to do!). But the tactic Behe is employing worries me, because it is so cynical, and dangerously effective.

Essentially, id creationists are slowly trying to build the case that their arguments and "data" are so subtle that only "other" scientists can possibly enter the discussion. Since the rest of us have neither the time, the inclination, nor often the analytical talent to follow the details, we have no way to come to our own conclusions based on reason alone. Yes, I suppose I could spend a few years studying up on HIV and retroviruses in general, so theoretically I could acquire the knowledge to make my own conclusion. But in reality, it is very unlikely I will do so. Nor will you, unless this, or something similar, is your field. The knowledge and data needed are too specialized.

You see where this is going? ID creationists are deliberately forcing the question of who we laypeople will trust. Since we are not in any position to judge Smith vs Behe on the playing field of the data, we must rely on irrelevant social heuristics to decide who makes the better case. Behe plays two of these cards, his rank and his gender. Smith plays her own card, namely her acquisition of knowledge as a graduate student specializing in this area. Since I can't understand the argument as an argument, how do I determine who I wish to trust? (And "neither" for a variety of reasons is not an answer. Why is a whole 'nother discussion.)

Rank and gender mean absolutely nothing to me. And I've studied enough rhetoric to recognize the fallacy of a simple ad hominem argument and learned also that ad hominem attacks are often deployed when the debater has bupkis (they are also used when the person is knowledgeable, as Smith demonstrates so capably). OTOH, expertise matters a great deal to me.

So, I trust Smith and believe she surely is right.

Believe. It's a perfectly fine word, it has its uses, but in this context, it's an obscenity, I bitterly resent being forced, by Behe, not Smith, to fall back on it. I want to know about evolution and the science of species' origins, to understand a bit of it. I have not the slightest interest in "believing in it." But I don't have a choice if I try to follow this argument. And this gets to the crux of the problem. Many people - possibly even most - who encounter the evolution vs. id creationism debate for the first time will look at Behe's degrees - he's got a PhD - and his list of publications (without reading them) and, perhaps unconsciously, factor in his gender to conclude that, at best, Smith may not have a broad enough grasp of her specialty to put the facts she studies into the proper perspective.

In other words, we have the weirdest of paradoxes. The more abstruse and detailed the argumentation gets in the fight against creationism, the more important emotional, non-rational cues become for the vast majority of us in weighing how to judge who's right! What this implies is that it makes little sense for a scientist of Smith's caliber to "engage" Behe if he is arguing in an irresponsible fashion. Two reasons:

1. If Behe has nothing to contribute to the science, Smith is wasting her time by arguing with a malicious fool. Behe has a long, documented history of making arguments that pretend to be scientific but are patently worthless. If this is another - and no doubt it is - who has time?

2. If the purpose of engaging Behe is to rebut his arguments for the benefit of we interested laypeople, there is in fact the very real possibility that even the most interested of such folks - and I include myself in that list - will simply not be able to follow it. This inadvertently aids Behe and other creationists by all but forcing us to rely on emotional cues, tribal loyalties, and social norms in order to choose sides. This is surely the exact opposite of Smith's intent.

Let me stop for a moment and say unequivocally that I'm on Smith's side. I've read (and fully understood) enough Behe and his scientifically knowledgeable opponents to know that when it comes to the science, the man is either a fool, paid to act like a fool, or both. The questions I am bringing up are tactical. What is the point of arguing with Behe at such a level of detail? Who does it inform? Who does it benefit? Who does it hurt? I'm beginning to suspect that it would be far better to find new and creative ways to ignore Behe than to raise his status by arguing with him over stuff everyone who's studied the field knows is sheer idiocy.

Yes, some laypeople might be better equipped than I to follow Smith's arguments. Which simply means that Behe and his ilk will up the ante until even they are hopelessly lost, without ever once contributing anything to a genuine discussion of science. Ultimately, I think scientists must somehow find a way to push Behe to the side, not in the Mooney/Nisbet framing sense, but by making the modern case for evolution so crystal clear, and by restating that case over and over again, so that Behe sounds as much like a Flat-Earther to laypeople as he does to Smith (and me). The basic science isn't that hard to grasp, people. And, y'know, it really is incredibly exciting stuff, what's going on, what's been discovered.

PZ is certainly doing a great job in the blogosphere. And so does SA. Smith among others, . In the bookish world, Sean Carroll's books on evo-devo are masterpieces of popular science (links to come). What is needed, however, are regular. well-respected, and persuasive people in the mass media (television most of all) and in politics who will put science, especially the science of evolution, front and center. Not because it's an ideology with a covert morality. It isn't and it doesn't have any. But because the theory of evolution is one of the most extraordinary and most easily understood ideas anyone's ever had.

More on that last point soon (grin).