Creationists sure are sneaky little liars, aren’t they? Here’s an account of a theologian who was suckered by a creationist film crew — now he’s on a DVD that mangles his ideas and postures for young earth creationism and biblical literalism.
Dishonesty must be a universal property of creationists.
You’re going to have to be a very quick study at theology for that to be like you in the time-span you indicate. You can possibly save on creationists by counting the ones who already filmed you though. ;-)
Poor man… to use a neologism, he has been pwned!! The question is, if the movie ever comes out, can’t you and Mr. Heard, as well as other people whose views have been intentionally misrepresented and bent out of shape, have a legal recourse? I think this type of deliberate misrepresentation exceeds the protection of free speech offered by the First Amendment. Perhaps you should talk to your lawyer…
Dishonestly (at least, intellectual dishonesty) is a necessary quality of creationists. You can’t argue for such a myth without being dishonest somehow, somewhere. If they practiced honesty with themselves and others, they’d have to abandon their belief pretty quickly.
That’s right. It’s lies all the way down.
I see those happy-go-lucky people from the Institute for Creation Research are involved in this caper. Not surprised. They are busy little beavers. The last Act & Facts newsletter from ICR highlighted their research program. Yeah, “research.” They’re into genomics now. And, guess what? They already know the results they’re going to get!
Conclusion first. Research second. Such an efficient way to do “science”! [Link]
Oh no! Roger Moore is involved with quacky creationist videos!
Thanks for ruining another day.
Roger Moore. Chuck Norris. Those fundies have got so action stars who are gonna kick atheist arse in the name of the sky fairy. Be afraid, unless osteoporis get them first….
What you said, Christian Burnham.
From the Saint, to 007 to UNICEF, to a knighthood, to THIS?
Make that at least 2 peoples’ days ruined.
“This is what you have to do when the idea you defend is fundamentally untrue. As I’ve said before, the simplest way to defend an untruth is to lie. If you adopt methods of dishonesty as your career, then I can only imagine that you inure yourself to worse sins in all aspects of your life. Creationism breeds immorality.
“Mark my words: it’ll all come out in the IRS audits or in the divorce courts.” – Blake Stacey, OM
If someone’s willing to lie to themselves about the existence of God, lying to PZ Myers about the subject of a film project is going to seem very trivial.
I get the feeling that anyone who decided to be on camera for anyone should make their own video. Webcams are cheap – just set one up and record the entire interview. If any group does anything shady, you can publicize the original, uncut version of the interview. At least you could hold them up as liars in front of the world.
hey, look at that, it’s like blog-crossover day. first, i read that blog and you’re mentioned in the comments, then i read your blog, and you have a post about prof. heard.
Someone needs to make a movie about them
It’s not limited to creationists but seem part and parcel of the whole religious right. Take, for example, the Slidell, Louisiana case involving a portrait of Jesus pointing at the Bible that was hung in the lobby of the City Courthouse over a sign that says “To Know Peace, Obey These Laws.” The matter has apparently been resolved but not before the presiding Federal judge got this shot in:
Dover redux.
Roger Moore is involved with quacky creationist videos!
Proof positive that there is only one true 007…and he’s Scottish.
As previously noted by PZ, Francis Collins was not at all happy with the way Coral Ridge Ministeries misrepresented themselves to him in the making of their Darwin’s Deadly Legacy documentary and then used it to accuse Darwin’s evolution of being responsible for Hitler’s genocides.
You’ve got to give those creationists points for consistency, as in Lying for Jesus, quote-mining and endlessly repeating the same old well-refuted talking points.
Isn’t there some way we can use Francis Collins to our advantage?
Just out of curiousity, Dr. Myers, but have you ever corresponded with Christopher Heard? He seems to know who you are and is unhappy that you both received the same treatment. I doubt that there’s much of anything the two of you might agree on, but one never knows, do one? (to quote an authentic American philosopher).
I don’t know if they really want to be a pack of liars.
They may feel compelled by Paul
Romans 3:7-8 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
I’m probably wrong, and none of them have ever read that passage, or if they did it was so twisted they don’t see anything about lies. Sometimes if feels good to be naughty.
Don’t blame Roger Moore yet. He’s a British actor. Funny thing about that breed, they like to work and tend not to think in the “career” terms Hollywood types do. They plunked down a check–he showed up and read the lines (that’s the most likely scenario anyway).
Wait, are you talking about universals, or properties? Ack… philosophy flashback.
Has anyone seen Friends of God (an HBO documentary about U.S. evangelicals)? My favorite part is when the nutty creationist “teacher” tries to argue against evolution by showing an ape-man picture and then asking the children in the audience if any of their grandparents look like the picture. The children all laugh and say no, but the jaw-dropping irony of this scene is that that inbred twit himself looked just like the damn picture! Apart from the obvious ridiculousness of the argument, the guy’s own scruffy, simian face refuted it.
Lying, denying the obvious, proclaiming the absurd and contrived to be the simple, unequivocal truth… these people are mindfucked in ways Orwell couldn’t even imagine. I haven’t a clue what might get through them.
On a side note, I spellchecked this comment in MS Word, and “mindfucked” slid right by… interesting.
Cameron, I’ve never corresponded with PZ, but I read Pharyngula and the Panda’s Thumb regularly. I’d call myself a “theistic evolutionist,” if a label is necessary, more or less similar to Ken Miller (though IIRC, Miller is a little more metaphysical than I would be about “souls”), so we’d agree on a lot regarding the mechanics and processes of evolution–largely because I pay attention to experts like PZ who know what they’re talking about.
The production company in question certainly didn’t practice full disclosure, but in the spirit of Christian charity I wish to own up to my share of naïveté in not asking enough of the right questions before letting the cameras roll.
Chris, from what I gather at the Pepperdine website, your specialty is the history, theology and practice of Old Testament Judaism, correct?
I was going to say that it’s surprising they’re not ashamed of lying to a fellow Christian, but given your choice of field they probably consider you as firmly hellbound as PZ. I suppose it’s an honor to be considered an enemy who’s sufficiently distinguished to be quotemined.
Isn’t there some way we can use Francis Collins to our advantage?
you mean like this:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Theistic.cfm
yes. I’ve often found Collins to be a great example to refer to when someone wants to talk about special creation and altruism, and see a case in point of what happens to a good scientist when they expose themselves to such drivel over an extended period.
the more extreme version of what Collins espouses in that book is detailed by none other than Michael Egnor.
surely you all remember that name?
seriously, having Collins extend himself like that has been a great source of material for me, at least. He’s better than Dembski!
I have found myself referring to that all too brief review as a starting point quite often over the last year.
… what’s really remarkable about Collins, is you can see his entire cognitive dissonance right in his last book, laid out for all to see.
the first part of the book does a better than passable job examining the evidence in support of the current ToE and common descent, including, of course, the results from the human genome project he headed.
the second part of the book goes off into la-la land, completely ignoring entire fields of endeavor to postulate nonsensical ideas about altruism and “moral law”.
It’s an absolute textbook (pardon the pun) case of cognitive dissonance.
Anton, I would describe myself a specialist in the history and literature of ancient Israel and Judah, focusing on the period c. 1200-350 BCE. “Judaism,” as historians of that religion use the term, is really just barely getting started in the 400s BCE. But that’s sort of just a nitpick.
Since the same production company snagged several people in my department, I think it was probably not a case of picking me out of a lineup, but of the producers making false assumptions about our department’s theological leanings based on our institution’s denominational history.
Strange but true:
Roger Moore used to play the character of Simon Templar in the days of black and white TV in the UK. Simon Templar’s nickname (in the books too) was ‘The Saint’.
Dr (I assume) Heard:
OT, but given your specialty maybe you can help me out….
There is an temple site that was continuously occupied and rebuilt up to Roman times that showed a gradual development of montheism in Judea, not a sudden imposition. I can’t remember the name of the site, so Google hasn’t coughed up the relevent pages.
Graculus, I’m not sure what site that would be. The first one that springs to mind is the presumably Israelite or Judean temple at Arad, but I don’t think that one was in use all the way up to Roman times. The Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim and the Jewish temple at Elephantine certainly show that Judaism was not centralized in Hellenistic and early Roman times, but I’m pretty sure the Gerizim group would have been strictly monotheistic by that point in history. My memory is fuzzy on how strictly monotheistic the Elephantine Jews were in the Hellenistic period. But anyway, there’s plenty of archaeological evidence, plus plenty of indications in the Bible itself (if you take certain parts of it as reliable historical sources on this matter), that ancient Israelite religion was most commonly polytheistic until about the 7th century BCE. In the last quarter of that century, a monolatrous “Yahweh-alone” movement (i.e., “worship only this one god, no matter how many might happen to exist”) seems to have arisen–not strictly montheistic, since there’s no evidence that this group made metaphysical claims to the effect that no other gods but theirs existed; the “Yahweh-alone” movement was about allegiance, not metaphysics. The first indications of a full-blown radical monotheism appear in biblical texts dated to the middle of the sixth century BCE. Before that, monotheism as such doesn’t seem to have been contemplated very much, and the elements within Israel pushing for monolatry seem always to have been a minority, and quite often an out-of-power minority, throughout the existence of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah and even perhaps well into the Hellenistic era. The “Yahweh-alone” Maccabees of Hanukkah fame were apparently a minority in a society that generally had no problems worshiping Zeus/Baal-Shamem alongside of, or as a different guise for, the Jews’ ancestral god Yahweh. Hm, I’ve slipped into “lecture mode” and better stop …
Actually, I appreciate “lecture mode”, my main historical interest is in pre- and proto-history, so it’s nice to get a digestible chunk of the other stuff.
Scrounging around, I believe I might be thinking of Pella.
Not on my account (and possibly not as far as various other people here are concerned). Lecture mode is quite OK from someone who has a clue (and even better if they can point to specific evidence, such as original texts or sites, in sufficient detail that those things can be checked). It’s the clueless who are annoying at it.
Graculus: oh, okay. I don’t really know that much about that particular site. I don’t recall it having really been an Israelite/Judean/Jewish site in pre-Roman times, though I know it became a sanctuary for Jews fleeing from Jerusalem after their rebellion against Rome c. 66-70 CE. Sorry, I can’t illuminate that one much. Now if you want to talk about the Ta’anach cult stand, which strongly seems to conjoin the Israelite God with a goddess … that one I know something about.
I don’t recall it having really been an Israelite/Judean/Jewish site in pre-Roman times
That’s what makes it so interesting, although it does put it out of your purview. IIRC, (still can’t find the original article that sparked my interest), it shows a gradual progression from polytheism to state encouragment of a single/”head” god, to a montheism that isn’t Jewish. But there is no sign of any kind of conquest driven change in cult practices, which kinda ruins the OT as history in a big way.
Now if you want to talk about the Ta’anach cult stand, which strongly seems to conjoin the Israelite God with a goddess …
Hehehehe, I’ll have to look that one up. IIRC the layout of Solomon’s temple is the same as a Canaanite temple to Ba’al, yes?
Oh dear, we seem to have strayed waaaay off topic :-)
But it is the type of stuff that the literalists never talk about.
Now if you want to talk about the Ta’anach cult stand, which strongly seems to conjoin the Israelite God with a goddess … that one I know something about.
I’d love it if you would. I can’t get to your blog from my work computer (it unaccountably filters your site). Count me in as a vote for your lecture style. :)
The anachronism! It burns! Augh!
Of course, if Our Lord and Savior can play baseball, soccer and football (in his robe and sandals, yet!), I guess pointing at a Bible is no great stretch.
Allegiance-based monotheism — your gods exist, but they only rule in Babylon — also provides an interesting answer for that favorite question of young heretics, “Where did Mrs. Cain come from?” If the scribes who assembled the J, E and P documents together to form the Pentateuch believed that Yahweh was the one true god of Israel but that other gods existed and ruled in other countries, then many stories in Genesis can be read as describing not the ancestors of everybody, but the ancestors of the Israelite people.
I recall they got to discussing this at John Wilkins’ place a few weeks ago.
Of course it is. They’re all delusional, self-lying intellectual cowards.
Of course dishonesty is a universal property to them. Hell, it’s the primary fucking requirement.
Graculus:
Yes, more or less. Of course we can’t get to whatever remains of Solomon’s temple, if any, there might be, because there’s this inconvenient mosque in the way. But the description given in the Bible matches a typical Canaanite temple floorplan, and the Israelite/Judean temple at Arad (which shouldn’t exist, according to mainstream biblical ideology, but which manifestly does exist) follows the same floorplan, to a tolerable degree of architectural variation.
Isn’t that what the comments are for?
Because many self-proclaimed “literalists” aren’t really literalists. They pick and choose what to take literally as much as (we) moderates pick and choose what to emphasize and what to characterize as outmoded. Nobody who can generate a passable score on a standardized reading comprehension test should be able in good conscience to interpret both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 literally at the same time–much less Psalm 89, in which the Israelite God creates the world only after slaying the chaos dragon, but nobody in the YEC camp takes that literally.
Hey, thank you, Chris Heard (and Graculus for posing the questions). The conversation may be a bit OT but I love it. And I’ve bookmarked Christopher’s site.
Since no one seems to have responded to Kausik Datta’s question about legal recourse:
“I think this type of deliberate misrepresentation exceeds the protection of free speech offered by the First Amendment. Perhaps you should talk to your lawyer…”
The First Amendment, as with the rest of the Bill of Rights, refers to the relationship between citizens and their government, not between the citizens themselves. No free speech issue arises here, but civil actions for slander, misrepresentation, fraud, etc., are certainly on the table.
By now, given the bitter experiences of you, Dawkins, Higgaion, et al., it seems that anyone videotaped or filmed – even by respectable main-line folks – should require a duplicate of the whole interview be made, at the interviewer’s expense, and given to the interviewee before the interviewer departs. Then there would clear evidence of any distortions, and in egregious cases, maybe some basis for legal action!
[quote=”uknesvuinng”]Dishonestly (at least, intellectual dishonesty) is a necessary quality of creationists. You can’t argue for such a myth without being dishonest somehow, somewhere. If they practiced honesty with themselves and others, they’d have to abandon their belief pretty quickly.[/quote]
In my experience, most vocal creationist are dishonest [i]waaay[/i] beyond what’s conceivably necessary.
They also tend to be unaccountably lazy. My “favorite” example is a guy on a message board who tried a variant of the thermodynamic argument. The catch: not only couldn’t he be bothered to find out what the 2nd law of thremodynamic actually [i]says[/i], he couldn’t be bothered to find out the [i]name[/i] of it. Naturally, when I told him to learn the first thing about a subject before pontificating it the cretinist crowd accused me of intellectual elitism.