Lies for Youth

Posted 21 December 2004 by PZ Myers

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/12/lies-for-youth.html

What really bugs me about creationists is that often they seem to be unconstrained by any respect for honesty. It's more than presenting a different side to a story; it's flagrant misrepresentation of the position of evolutionary biology, coupled to self-serving praise for their own unsupported position. There's a creationist site that carries prevarication to an extreme, called "Truth for Youth", which peddles online comic books that have unbelievably dishonest distortions of the facts about abortion, homosexuality, and of course, evolution. I've dissected their "Truth About Evolution" comic book, but man, the others are ripe for a good flaying.

The "Truth for Youth" stuff exemplifies the "Lying for Jesus" strategy of too many creationists. I should think Christians would be ashamed and appalled at this dishonest propaganda skulking under the banner of their faith.

10 Comments

a Creationist Troll, apparently · 21 December 2004

What really bugs me about evolutionists is that often they seem to be unconstrained by any respect for honesty. It's more than presenting a different side to a story; it's flagrant misrepresentation of the positions of creationism and intelligent design, coupled to self-serving praise for their own unsupported position. For example, the National Center for Science Education masks a blatantly anti-creationist under an apparently neutral - and indeed laudable-sounding moniker. Talkorigins masks an evolutionist agenda under the guise of

a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.

I should think that good scientists would be ashamed and appalled at this dishonest propaganda skulking under the banner of their faith.

Gav · 21 December 2004

aCTa - what faith is that please? I certainly don't believe in evolution; I'm prepared to go along with it for now just because it seems to be the only theory around. I do wish you could show me a better one.

Great White Wonder · 21 December 2004

Gav, how about enterocraftic theory? It's the latest alternative to evolutionary theory that's sweeping the nation. Just wait until they hear about it in Dover. Herr Buckingham will be freebasing enterocraftic theory before 2005 is over.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 21 December 2004

The "Truth for Youth" stuff exemplifies the "Lying for Jesus" strategy of too many creationists. I should think Christians would be ashamed and appalled at this dishonest propaganda skulking under the banner of their faith.
— P.Z. Myers

Indeed. That is exactly why I put in time and effort on countering antievolution propaganda.

Ed Darrell · 22 December 2004

Have you ever noticed how worked up creationists get when you point out that their tactics are "lying for Jesus?"

It's really amusing if they admit they don't see any moral difficulty with the tactic (or is it strategy?).

Flint · 22 December 2004

It's really amusing if they admit they don't see any moral difficulty with the tactic (or is it strategy?).

There's some doubt that they recognize any dishonesty at all. They know the Truth. It is correct because they SAY it's correct. Contradictory claims are wrong. Period. If science says otherwise, science is wrong. Science is either stupid, lying, or both. Creationist Troll illustrates this principle faithfully. Science is simply a religion whose scriptures were NOT written by God, and are therefore written by Satan. Perhaps Satan is preventing scientists from seeing the Truth, or perhaps Satan has perverted the scientists into glorying in their errors. The presumption, of course, is that both creationists and scientists start already knowing the answers and are both interpreting reality to fit. The difference is that scientists start with the wrong answers, so their interpretation of reality MUST be false. But you have to know the Real Truth to realize this.

Steve · 23 December 2004

That's always, I think, been the most interesting question here. Are Dembski et al. being intentionally dishonest, or just unintentionally very wrong? I think the ID footsoldiers are believers, but I have to wonder about those at the top, who are educated enough to know better. Was it Glenn...Morgan? who said in the latest Skeptic that when he reviewed Wells's stuff the errors of omission were systematic and led him to suspect that the deception was intentional.

Rilke's Granddaughter · 23 December 2004

And more importantly, how could one tell? Could one design an 'intelligent inaccuracies' filter?

Y'know:

if the inaccuracy is due to regularity, then it's a mistake

if the inaccuracy is due to chance, then it's a mistake

if neither, then the author is lying his head off.

Joe McFaul · 24 December 2004

Here's a proposed "intelligent inaccuracies" filter

1. I fthe inacurracy is a rare occurence, it's due to chance.

2. If the inaccuracy is more frequent, it's due to carelessness or ignorance.

3. If the inaccuracy is frequnt and contiues after the inaccuracy is pointed out, it's due to "intelligent design."

Dembski, Wells and Johnson unquestionably demonstrate "intelligent Design" under this analytical framework.

Rilke's Granddaughter · 26 December 2004

Nice work, Joe. Yours is much cleaner than mine!