The premise for this "piece" is outlined right in its first three paragraphs (emphasis mine):
The opening of a new creation museum in Winnipeg should cause people to stop and think and, hopefully, question their long held assumptions about the origins of life.
Although the museum is small and opened without much fanfare, it represents a very small part of a much wider debate that should be occurring in society, but is clearly not.
Nestled in the basement of Oxford Bible Church -- a local evangelical Christian congregation - the museum showcases exhibits outlining the scientific case for what many call young earth creationism, drawing from modern geology and paleontology.
As any "true believer", Mr. Quesnel works from a dogmatic (i.e. unproven, untrue or outright false), self-serving assertion: that creationism vs evolutionism is currently a subject of a "
wide debate". That is patently false - except in the minds of creationists like himself. As in the case of global warming, the science "has been in" a long time with regards to evolution. No debate here, except for ignorant deniers like the author of this column. However, such a false assertion on his part is necessary in order to push his argument that such a debate "
should be occurring in society, but is clearly not". The obvious reason
why such a debate is not occurring is because - once again - there is no debate to have here. Finally, the author uses the same old subterfuge of seeking to validate creationism as a science by pointing out that this new creation museum draws "
from modern geology and paleontology".
Right. We've already seen such
shameless exercises in utter ignorance, lack of understanding and/or outright adulterating of scientific facts in order to make "things fit" neatly in support of their beliefs. We know how such
museums exhibits
constitute pitiful spectacles of intellectual sloth, ignorance and religious fundamentalism-driven fantasy. We know that these are nothing more than black holes of human knowledge.
And with regards to "
drawing from modern geology and paleontology" - perhaps creationists should stop claiming that modern geology and paleontology are wrong with their dating methods, chemical analyses and other approaches that these scientific disciplines use. Then again, when people are engaged in a continuous, never-ending exercise of disassembling and cherry-picking of facts, one should expect them to be consistent with their inconsistencies in reasoning.
As I illustrated
before: you can't dismiss portions of a scientific discipline without dismissing it altogether, including all other related disciplines and/or fields.
This, of course,
goes with evolution as well.
But before getting to my actual, bottom-line point, let us read a little more of Mr. Quesnel's drivel (emphasis mine):
Of course, the reality that Christians accept the biblical account of the origins of the universe and humanity is not really news. Many Christians refuse to accept the secular compromise offered by "theistic evolution" that many mainline denominations have succumbed to. It is also the case that Christian believers are refusing to hide the growing evidence undermining Darwinian evolution. The creation museum at Oxford Bible Church outlines ample reasons to think twice about what many are taught about evolution. Whenever I open the news, I am hearing about new findings challenging evolution.
Like a true fundamentalist, Mr. Quesnel condemns those denominations who are not as fundamentalist and parochial as he is.
No surprises there.
In addition, he makes sure to take a swipe at theistic evolution, or
evolutionary creationism, another (equally) shoddy belief which seeks to compromise between the actual science of evolution and religious beliefs that God created it all. Again, a true fundamentalist like Mr. Quesnel would not find such a "compromise" acceptable, since he unsurprisingly adheres to the absolute literacy of Bible - and thus, all has happened as described in Genesis.
Yes, yes, yes - the scientific theory of evolution is "collapsing" (or so
creationists have been clamoring over almost two centuries now, to this day). And,
of course, the Earth (and the Universe) is about 6-10 thousand years old (once again:
despite what modern geology and paleontology say about that). Welcome to our
Semi-Dark Ages indeed.
Furthermore, if that is what
other creation
exhibits are saying, then it must be
true (so writes Mr. Quesnel himself)!
Just like "the blind leading the blind", what Mr. Quesnel is condoning approvingly here is "the ignorant leading the ignorant".
Or perhaps this should be "the disassembler leading the ignorant", or "the liar leading the ignorant"? For indeed, Mr. Quesnel's claim that "
whenever I open the news, I am hearing about new findings challenging evolution" can only be characterized as a blatant lie in order to fool the unwary and ignorant. I read and watch the news day in and day out - and never have I read or heard any such "findings" which challenge evolution. Of course, I do mean "scientifically credible" findings here - unless Mr. Quesnel refers to
feuilles de chou columns like his? Or even worse: creationist blogs who keep plugging the same type of phony arguments, misunderstandings, misinterpretations and overall ignorance-base distortions of scientific facts and knowledge?
Talk about your typical echo chamber ...
And now, let us read the
pièce de résistance from Mr. Quesnel's column (emphasis mine):
Witness the case of Stephen Meyer, a proponent of intelligent design in the United States. Meyer wrote a peer-reviewed academic article in a scientific journal affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution about his ideas and almost lost his career. This is a scientist who is not a young earth creationist and yet he faced blacklisting by a prominent scientific organization.
(...) This shows how resistant mainstream science is to anything that questions the dominant ideas of Darwinian evolution.
Once again: this is what you get from someone who has no idea what he is talking about.
Let us take a quick look at what peer- review
is all about:
Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It is used primarily by editors to select and to screen submitted manuscripts, and by funding agencies, to decide the awarding of grants. The peer review system aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields.
Is such a process perfect and infallible? Of course not. But it remains the best means that science and the scientific method have in order to ensure the validity and reality of scientific research results and conclusions. That is also the means by which scientific consensus is achieved.
Which is what global warming and, especially in the present case, evolution are all about.
Here is a refresher of what a scientific theory is, and what this means, from a
previous article of mine (emphasis added):
(...)
That is when two other major historical landmarks occurred.
One was the increasing need not just to observe and derive explanations (theories) for said observations, but for experimental demonstrations of said explanations. In other words, this gave the birth to the scientific theory, which must not only be based on observations but, if it is "right", it will predict experimental results and/or additional observations. If experimental results/observations differ from what the theory predicts, then the theory is either flawed (and needs to be reworked) or is plainly wrong (and another will take its place - only to be likewise relentlessly "tested" in turn).
The other was the subtle but quite significant change in the way questions in scientific investigations were asked: instead of asking "How", which assumes potentially false knowledge to be "true" (or as dogma - see above), investigators began asking "Why", which turns out not to assume anything to begin with. Furthermore, asking "Why" gave birth to the scientific hypothesis, which must be verified by observation and experimental results. Once a hypothesis is thus verified, it becomes an established observation or fact of reality.
Hence, a solid scientific theory will be comprised of one or numerous verified hypotheses, all backed by repeated experimental and verifiable demonstrations, in addition to offer an overall explanation of all these results underlying a phenomenon, as well as predicting the outcome of other experiments. Eventually, a scientific theory which has been proven time and time and time again to be right becomes accepted as a Law of Nature.
Therein you have the essence and purpose of the scientific method.
To this effect, evolution was a scientific theory proposed by Darwin and which has been supported and proven and demonstrated over and over and over again - especially thanks to the modern fields of cellular biology, molecular biology and genetics.
And consequently, evolution is inching closer and closer to becoming a genuine Law of Nature - like the Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Electricity-Magnetism, the Law of Gravity, the Law of General and Restrained Relativity, the Laws of Genetic Inheritance, etc., etc., etc..
After all, science - and the scientific method - constitute a process of fact-based and experimental demonstration-supported inquiry which allows Humanity to gain further understanding of the inner workings of the Universe, of Life and, ultimately, of ourselves - from all their complexities to the minutest of details.
In other words, science has the unmitigated
gall to take it upon itself to demonstrate and prove its explanations - and therein lies the "threat" posed by science and
for which it keeps coming increasingly under attack by fundamentalists: scientists not only seek to understand and explain reality, but furthermore strive to ensure the validity of their explanations (which means
question everything that is not supported by facts or which has not been demonstrated or proven as a fact).
Consequently, being refused a publication by a peer-reviewed scientific "mainstream" journal is absolutely
not the equivalent of being "blacklisted" - and I should well know, considering that I am a scientist and that I've had my share of submitted papers being rejected at first, only to be accepted later on after performing additional experiments and therefore adding more convincing experimental data, in order to better/fully support my conclusions. Hence, a "creationism paper" being flatly rejected for publication by a credible scientific journal is no surprise here, considering that creationism and/or Intelligent Design have nothing to do with science or scientific facts,
but all about unproven, non-demonstrated logical, philosophical and/or theological argumentation. This is also why any proponent of creationism or ID will have little or no credibility as a
bona fides scientist.
Which, incidentally, brings me to my bottom-line point. Let us examine what
quackery/bogus science is all about and how it works:
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. Claims that the oil companies are frustrating the invention of an automobile that runs on water, for instance, are a sure sign that the idea of such a car is baloney.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.
Thousands of published papers in para-psychology, for example, claim to report verified instances of telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition. But those effects show up only in tortured analyses of statistics. The researchers can find no way to boost the signal, which suggests that it isn't really there.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't. Contrary to the saying, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote."
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth.
Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match the output of modern scientific laboratories.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.
These fit Creationism, ID and their supporters to a tee.
Add to this the "victimization" angle pushed by Mr. Quesnel in his columns as shown here, in addition
to other "sad" examples of persecution he mentioned, and one gets the full picture of what this is all about:
quackery.
In essence, creationists/IDists and their religious fundamentalist supporters are no different than those vitamin pushers, miracle diets sellers, snake oil salesmen, quack devices promoters, and other assorted quacks. They use the same duplicitous selling tactics, banking on the ignorance of people in order to convince them.
Or, to put it
another way (emphasis mine):
They play on fear. They cater to hope (..) Its promoters wear the cloak of science. They use scientific terms and quote - or misquote - scientific references. Talk show hosts may refer to them as experts or as "scientists ahead of their time".
(...) First, they appeal to people's curiosity in order to persuade them to "try and see". Then they appeal to their vanity in order to convince them to disregard scientific evidence in favor of personal experience — to "think for themselves".
(...) Another potent technique is cultural association, in which promoters ally themselves with religious or other cultural beliefs by associating their product or service with an article of faith or prejudice of their target audience.
(...) Quacks are involved in a constant struggle with legitimate health care providers, mainstream scientists, government regulatory agencies and consumer protection groups. Despite the strength of this science-based opposition, quackery manages to flourish. To maintain their credibility, quacks use a variety of clever propaganda ploys. Here are some favorites:
"They persecuted Galileo!" The history of science is laced with instances where great pioneers and their discoveries were met with resistance. Harvey (nature of blood circulation), Lister (antiseptic technique) and Pasteur (germ theory) are notable examples. Today's quack boldly asserts that he is another example of someone ahead of his time. Close examination, however, will show how unlikely this is. First of all, the early pioneers who were persecuted lived during times that were much less scientific. In some cases, opposition to their ideas stemmed from religious forces. Secondly, it is a basic principle of the scientific method that the burden of proof belongs to the proponent of a claim. The ideas of Galileo, Harvey, Lister and Pasteur overcame their opposition because their soundness can be demonstrated.
A related ploy, which is a favorite with cancer quacks, is the charge of "conspiracy" (...) Claims of "suppression" are used to market publications as well as treatments. Many authors and publishers purport to offer information that your doctor, the AMA, (mainstream scientists) and/or government agencies "don't want you to know about".
Organized quackery poses its opposition to medical science as a "philosophical conflict" or "paradigm shift", rather than a clash between proven versus unproven or fraudulent methods. This creates the illusion of a "holy war" rather than a conflict that could be resolved by examining the facts. Another diversionary tactic is to charge that quackery's critics are biased (...).
Quacks like to charge that, "Science doesn't have all the answers". That's true, but it doesn't claim to have them. Rather, it is a rational and responsible process that can answer many questions—including whether procedures are safe and effective for their intended purpose. It is quackery that constantly claims to have answers for incurable diseases. The idea that people should turn to quack remedies when frustrated by science's inability to control a disease is irrational. Science may not have all the answers, but quackery has no answers at all!
Many treatments advanced by the scientific community are later shown to be unsafe or worthless. Doctors also make mistakes. Such failures become grist for organized quackery's public relations mill in its ongoing attack on science. Actually, "failures" reflect a key element of science: its willingness to test its methods and beliefs and abandon those shown to be invalid. True scientists have no philosophical commitment to particular approaches, only a commitment to develop and use methods that are safe and effective for an intended purpose. When a quack remedy flunks a scientific test, its proponents merely reject the test.
Each of these ploys represents a basic technique called misdirection - analogous to what magicians do to shift the audience's attention away from what is important in order to deceive them. When faced with a criticism they cannot meet head on, quacks simply change the topic.
Dixit Mr. Quesnel in his
closing remarks:
This shows how resistant mainstream science is to anything that questions the dominant ideas of Darwinian evolution.
Let's hope Winnipegers are not as resistant about their own creation museum.
If it walks like a duck ...
Yet another universal truth laid bare - applicable anywhere.
Addendum: for your reading pleasure - two other takes on Mr. Quesnel's
feuille de chou here and
here. Enjoy.
(Cross-posted at
DKos)