Refusal vs Refutation

Refusal to believe theories that logically follow from evidence does not constitute refutation. This point is missed by creationists when they deny the evidence that led to evolutionary theories, or when they fail to understand that there is not one single theory that seeks to explain the fact of biological evolution, or when they mistake acknowledgement of incomplete explanation for a complete failure of explanation.

There are undoubtedly numerous explanations for the cognitive errors and illogic of collective creationist positions. Most obvious is the impact of poor science education in those areas of the U.S. in which fundamentalism is deeply entrenched.

Individuals who have been raised with insistent belief in special creation experience dissonance when faced with scientific facts, so they are likely to close their minds to those facts. The handfull of scientists who make their living through the advocation of anti-science promotion of ID theory cannot be accused of lack of science education per se, so their motivation in promoting creationism must stem from cognitive bias founded in inculcated religious convictions.

The problem of dissonance is, of course, compounded for most creationists by anti-science policies adopted by those in charge of education in Bible Belt states. Such policies lower the standards of science education to deplorable levels for a supposedly advanced nation [NSTA, NSES, 8th grade, PISA]. For example, US students ranked between 20th and 27th of 4o nations in a 2003 comparison of scores on science testing (Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD PISA (Program for Student Assessment) 2003 database.)

The low level of science education of many creationist debaters is compounded by their repetition of information found in books and on websites with pro-creationist/anti-science bias. With little apparent comprehension of the scientific principles under discussion, and without apparent awareness that the information that they parrot is incomplete, biased, or inaccurate, creationist debaters are ill-equipped to refute the logic of science. They remain blissfully, if irritatingly ignorant of the theories that they attack, and most show no signs of willingness to acquaint themselves with those facts or to subject their own beliefs to scrutiny.

One glaring example of creationist ignorance of evolutionary science is illustrated by an insistence upon treating all evolutionary theory as beginning and ending with Darwinism coupled with an apparent lack of awareness of any form of mutation other than the point-mutation. They alone know whether they adopt this position of anti-science ignorance out of lack of acquaintance with scientific principles and/or with insistence upon the safety of attacking straw men. However, considering the anti-science education position espoused by the ID platform, coupled with poor standards of science education and evident antipathy to science and to intellectualism, it seems probable that most of the cognitive errors and illogic displayed by most creationist debaters stem from obdurate ignorance of science (at the very least).

Another example of ignorance in creationist debaters relates to their failure to distinguish between abiogenesis – the theory that life arose in primordial chemicals – and biological evolution, those events that altered the frequency of alleles down through successive generations of live organisms. Although biological evolution acted upon the products of biopoiesis (abiogenesis), the two are no more the same than rusting is equivalent to automobile manufacture.

Illogical Deceit Theory

Why “illogical”? See the Fallacies of Logic section, a dissection of the fallacies of logic to be found in many arguments, specifically the arguments of creationists, pro-‘intelligent design theory’ debaters (proids) and professional proponents of "intelligent design" (idists.)

Why “deceit”? The claims of idists that idism does not speculate on the nature of the ‘designer’ are deceitful in view of all the evidence that links idism to religion. Any doubts concerning such evidence should be dispelled by googling abiogenesis, or "intelligent design", and observing the number of religion oriented websites. One has to wonder why, if the proposals of ‘intelligent design theory’ had true merit, the professional proponents of 'id' theory should have chosen to lie in court.

Claims that ‘intelligent design theory’ (idism) is science and not theology are also deceitful in view of the anti-evolutionist and religious stance taken by proids. God cannot be examined by science, so idism is religious both in subject matter and in approach. See also The Wedge Document and On the teaching of Pseudoscience. (External: On the Teaching of Pseudoscience and The Wedge Document.)

The arguments of idism belong in the realm of philosophy and not in the science curriculum. Therefore, discussion of idism ought to be confined to university level philosophy courses. There the principles of critical thinking ought to be within the intellectual grasp of most students. Further, the dissection of fallacies of logic is pertinent to the course curriculum in philosophy.

In the more than 10 years since idism has been attracting the donations of proids, idists and fodis have not performed a scientific investigation nor produced a single peer-reviewed scientific publication specifically related to idism.

___

For brevity, intelligent design theory will be abbreviated “idism”. In so far as religion appeals to the emotions and to faith-despite-absence-of-direct-evidence the term 'id' seems appropriate because it refers to the feeling, non-rational part of the brain.

For brevity, those who promote idism will be abbreviated “idists”. This is a more polite term than is sometimes employed. However, some of the chief advocates of idism do have higher education, and ought to be considered more intelligent than the less polite terminology implies. Haven't guessed the term? Substitute 'o' for the first 's' in "idists. Aside from the inaccuracy of this term, employing it renders the evolutionist debater guilty of an ad hominem fallacy.

Internet debaters who are pro-idism will be abbreviated “proids”, and while some of these individuals may seem, within vernacular usage, to warrant the discarded appelation above, committing ad hominem fallacies is not good argumentation.

For accuracy the purported intelligent designer, 'id', will be referred to as God. The ultimate point being that philosophers can speculate about the existence of God, but that science cannot, by its naturalist nature examine the supernatural.