Why are creationists so dishonest?

[Lotan]

Well, they are!

I'm not talking about people who sincerely question current scientific theory or who choose to believe in creation as a matter of faith. I'm talking about those individuals and organizations who knowingly spread disinformation to the unsuspecting (gullible?) masses.

Is there evidence for this? You bet!

George Romanes Was a Creationist?
...an analysis of the list of "Creation Scientists" from the Answers in Genesis website.
Creationist Lies
...just a sample of creationists with their pants on fire.
Creationism and Dishonesty
...a plethora of links to sites that deal with 'you know what'.
Creationist Frauds
...a fun look at some prominent creationists - Carl Baugh, Kent Hovind, Walt Brown & Duane Gish.
Creationist "Out of Context" Quotes and The Quote Mine Project
...creationists love to quote from real scientists.

If that isn't enough here are a few fun articles about creationist integrity...
Michael Behe at it again
Was Suckered Into A Debate—And Survived!

So why do these good christians knowingly seek to deceive others?
They sure sell alot of books...

[Jose]

There's a difference between the scientific frauds, as Lotan has pointed out, and the creationist frauds. Indeed, some of the "mistakes" can be explained by a conviction that what they say is Absolute Truth, so if they make scientific mistakes, it's not really malicious. However, numerous times there have been public debates in which one or another example has been raised as "proof" of creation, or "proof" against evolution. The evolutionist debator has pointed out that these "proofs" are not proofs for one reason or another. The creationist has agreed, in public, that yes, what the scientist said is true. That example is not, after all, valid.

Then, in the next speech in front of a different audience, he uses the same example again.

So here we have public admission of having used an example that is just not true, and then going ahead and using the same example over again! Does this mean that this guy has no short-term memory, and can't recall that he knows he's wrong? Or does this mean that he is engaged in deliberate fraud? I choose the latter.

The question is: why do these few vocal creationists think it's OK to engage in this deliberate fraud? I think the answer is that they are so convinced that their position is Right, and that evolution is the path to all evil (because it proves the entire bible to be fake), that any means at all are justified. They are much like the Christian missionaries who converted the pueblo nations to Christianity by chopping off the feet of those who refused to acknowledge Christ--and then making them run. Of course, this is not nearly so dreadful a behavior, but the point is valid: although these creationists are seeking to ensure that only Truth is taught in schools, the seek Truth by bearing false witness. In neither example does it matter, or count as a "sin" because the opponents "aren't Christians" or "aren't True Christians" and therefore are not really human.

It's My Group vs The Others. By definition, the "others" are subhuman, so it's OK to treat them unfairly. A little dishonesty is no big deal when the stakes are so high.

[otseng]

Here is another example of evolutionist dishonesty.

Reiner Rudolph Robert Protsch

Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was a professor of anthropology at Frankfurt University for 30 years before he was forced to resign in disgrace. A university committee revealed that throughout his career Protsch had plagiarized the work of colleagues and had systematically falsified dates on numerous "stone age" fossils, including a skull fragment - dubbed Hahnhöfersand Man - that allegedly linked humans and Neanderthals.

Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered Protsch's frauds, said that "Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago. Professor Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."

Again, dishonesty is evident in all camps. To say that creationists are dishonest while not acknowledging that evolutionists can also be dishonest is hypocritical.

[micatala]

Again, dishonesty is evident in all camps. To say that creationists are dishonest while not acknowledging that evolutionists can also be dishonest is hypocritical.

I would agree.

I would also say we should not paint with too broad a brush. I have seen enough evidence to conclude that some creationists are dishonest or have engaged in dishonest behavior. This does not mean all creationists are necessarily dishonest.

The questions then becomes a matter of comparison. I don't know if we want to get into a mud-slinging campaign regarding 'which side is worse', but I don't think it is fair to conclude that 'since creationist A, B, and C and evolutionists D, E, and F have all engaged in dishonest behavior, both sides are just as bad and its a wash.'

Jose has already pointed out that the nature of the dishonest behavior is different, and I think this is a valid criterion for comparison. It has also pointed out that the scientific frauds, at least the cases we have seen, were self-correcting, although I am disappointed and somewhat astonished at O's last example which took 30 years to correct. Do we have any examples of creationists correcting their own? My guess is we should be able to find some, but this does not seem to happen to anywhere near the extent it does in the scientific community. Mostly, creationists who are engaging in dishonesty only change their behavior when they 'can't get away with it anymore.'

Another valid criterion for comparison would be the prevalence of the behavior within the given community. This may be hard to guage accurately, but if we could, it would be relevant.

Another dynamic that I think is interesting is not directly relevant to the dishonesty of the "professional creationists" but to the public discourse. It is my view that large segments of the population buy into the dishonest claims that some creationists make. Does the same happen on the evolutionary side?

I am frankly concerned about this public effect, partly because of the effect on education, partly because of how it plays out in the political discourse, but that is a topic for another thread.

[Lotan]

Here is another example of evolutionist dishonesty.

Actually, this would be the first example, so far.

So, Protsch was "forced to resign in disgrace".
"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago"
"This now appears to be rubbish."

Gosh, why didn't evolutionists just hang on to this false evidence if it suited their purpose? Oh yeah, real science doesn't work that way. There's no pre-conceived conclusion to support.

To say that creationists are dishonest while not acknowledging that evolutionists can also be dishonest is hypocritical.

Oh yeah...

...I have no doubt that there are scientists that have tried to pull scams...

To raise an objection to something I've already addressed isn't too nice either. Shame, shame.

[Lotan]

I would also say we should not paint with too broad a brush. I have seen enough evidence to conclude that some creationists are dishonest or have engaged in dishonest behavior. This does not mean all creationists are necessarily dishonest.

Maybe you should read the first paragraph of the first post on this thread.

[otseng]

Actually, this would be the first example, so far.

In that case, let me bring up a well known fraud.

Ernst Haekel

Haeckel's greatest discovery was the observation that early embryos of different species resembled each other, and one of his most important theories was the recapitulation doctrine, which maintains that the development of the individual organism obeys the same laws as the development of the whole animal species. Unfortunately, Haeckel's work was exposed as fraudulent more than 100 years ago. In his book Natural History of Creation (Natürliche Schopfungsgeschichte), published in 1868, he included woodcut prints represented as embryos of various animals to support the idea that during development, an embryo recapitulated its supposed evolutionary history, hypothetically from single celled organism through fish, amphibian, "lower mammals," to final progeny. On page 240, Haeckel placed woodcut prints of dog and human embryos. He stated that he obtained the dog embryo print from Bischoff's earlier work. On page 249, he placed woodcut prints which he stated were of tortoise, chicken, and dog. Haeckel stated that the actual embryos possessed the same likeness represented in the woodcuts. In fact, they were all fraudulently printed from the same woodcut.

Though his fraud, comparable to the Piltdown hoax, has been known to the scientific community for over 100 years, the exposures were not translated from German into English. The zeal with which the evolutionary community of the period was willing to accept any support for Darwinism unfortunately resulted in widespread propagation of Haeckel's work, but as quietly received the fraud exposure as it later did the Piltdown exposure. Unfortunately, many of the zealots preferred to let fraud exposures die out quietly rather than vocally admit that many scientists unquestioningly accepted and science writers wrote textbook chapters based on fraudulent information. Because science text writers typically pass on matter already well publicized in previous texts and are not within the inner circle of those conversant in the field, Haeckel's frauds and evolutionary concepts based on these frauds are still unfortunately included as fact in many science textbooks in U.S. school systems in the 1990s.

Jose has already pointed out that the nature of the dishonest behavior is different, and I think this is a valid criterion for comparison.

I think a more important criterion for comparison is the impact of the frauds. It is one thing for a person to be fraudulent and impact a few people. But in the case of the frauds by Ernst Haekel and Reiner Protsch, the impact is far-reaching. Especially when the frauds are able to be be published as the truth in textbooks. So, as to who has the greater sin, I would submit that it would be the ones who have deceived the most.

[USIncognito]

Sorry for not providing links, but just a few Creationist examples pop into mind.

- Paluxy "man" tracks.
- Lucy's Knee Joint.

Both have been disavowed, or the error has been acknolwedged by Creationists repeatedly, but they don't speak out against their fellow Creationists citing them again and again regardless.

As far as Haekel's drawings, about a minute of looking would show why citing it is basically a straw man - like I heard Jonathan Wells do so on C-SPAN last Saturday. The fact that there are myriad of things we can learn regarding evolution from embryological studies is completely ignored by Wells, and others who site his drawings. More importantly, they ignore the compelling evidences made by modern photographs of embryos, as opposed to Century old drawings.

Just as a completely unfair aside "gotcha" point, but can any Creationist who cites theses textbooks that use Haekel's drawings as evidence of Ontongengy recapitulating Phylogeny since say, 1920, actually name the publisher and author of those books? When Well's mentioned this on Saturday morning, he mentioned having 12 textbooks, but I'm wondering if he has ever cited on his website the textbooks in question.

[Gollum]

The textbooks that Wells "evaluated" are here. That link also has the substance of Wells' evaluation criteria.

Wells' evaluation criteria and specific gradings are examined here, here and here. Probably the definitive response to Icons of Evolution (where Wells indulged in his textbook ranking) is here at TO

[Lotan]

I think a more important criterion for comparison is the impact of the frauds. It is one thing for a person to be fraudulent and impact a few people. But in the case of the frauds by Ernst Haekel and Reiner Protsch, the impact is far-reaching.

Wow otseng, moral relativism? Who would have thought?
You want far-reaching impact? How about Answers in Genesis...

•"Last year 5 million people visited the Answers in Genesis Internet site, www.answersingenesis.org, making it one of the world's most popular religious Internet sites, spokesman Mark Looy said.
• Through a daily radio broadcast recorded by founder Ken Ham, 1.4 million listeners hear the creationist message on 585 radio stations worldwide — more than double the number of stations in 1996.
• The group's monthly newsletter went to 70,000 homes in 2001, double the number in 1996.
• The organization shipped more than 38,000 orders of books, videos or other materials about creationism last year. Its book, "Refuting Evolution," has sold more than 350,000 copies."

...from here. That's just one creationist organization, and those numbers are four years old!

Whatever impact the frauds by Ernst Haekel and Reiner Protsch (is it a German thing?) may have had back in the day would be approaching zero since they are obviously well known today.

Especially when the frauds are able to be be published as the truth in textbooks.

It's hard to evaluate the magnitude of the problem without seeing the actual context in which Haekel's woodcuts are presented. It doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. It certainly doesn't make or break the ToE.


"The fact that the literal form of recapitulation theory is rejected by modern biologists has sometimes been used as an argument against evolution by creationists. The argument is: "Haeckel's theory was presented as supporting evidence for evolution, Haeckel's theory is wrong, therefore evolution has less support". This argument is not only an oversimplification but misleading because modern biology does recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, explains them using evolutionary theory without recourse to Haeckel's specific views, and considers them as supporting evidence for that theory.
Image and quote from Wikipedia.

So, as to who has the greater sin, I would submit that it would be the ones who have deceived the most.

In other words what you are implying...

...evolutionists have demonstrated their share of hoaxes/frauds/dishonesty as well.
...dishonesty is evident in all camps.
...that evolutionists can also be dishonest...

...but can't bring yourself to say outright is that you think that mainstream science has been just as dishonest, if not moreso, than creationist propagandists! Am I wrong?
If you really need a criterion for comparison (which isn't the subject of this thread BTW), may I suggest the proportion of fraudulent information contained in each side's message?

[USIncognito]

The textbooks that Wells "evaluated" are here. That link also has the substance of Wells' evaluation criteria.

Thanks. One correction and one comment. You should have put "substance" (and possibly criteria) in parentheses as well. His choices of Phylogeny, Homology, Archaeopteryx and Peppered Moths v. Natural Selection show how desperate he is at erecting his straw icons.

Well(s), since we know how off base he is, there's really little reason in me commenting further. Except for one thing... I wonder how many Creationists who embrace ID based on Well's B.S. would continue to do so if they knew about his Unification Church beliefs. I realize plenty of Christians are able to cite Dawkins without reservation, but TEs tend to me more open minded than YECs.

Oh, and one more thing. If someone is going to suggest that the content of a specific 1998+ textbook is promoting Haeckel's drawings as "evidence," then I think a photocopy of the page in question would be much more powerful than just citing it. I really doubt that copywrite laws could be cited as sufficient reason not to.