John Lynch has an important essay in the current issue of the Newsletter of the History of Science Society. I'm sure we are all familiar with creationist abuses of science and philosophy (not to mention their abuses of common decency and basic integrity), but their comparable abuses of history often fly under the radar. Mind you, the problem is not simply that creationists routinely get their facts wrong. It is that their whole approach to the subject is rather blinkered:
In short, anti-evolutionist historical scholarship accurately mirrors creationist scientific work in being directed at the true believers rather than the academic community. The temptation may thus be for professional historians to ignore their claims - a temptation that I feel must be rejected. As historians, we have a social duty to correct error and over-simplification where it is foisted on the public by politically and religiously motivated individuals, and this responsibility goes beyond what sociologist and ID sympathizer Steve Fuller has dismissively seen as “catching the errors” of the creationists. There is something far more fundamental at stake. At a time where historians have eschewed Whig or “Great Man” histories, anti-evolutionists are presenting their “Not-So-Great Man” view of Darwin. They misrepresent the very nature of historical enquiry; they manipulate history until it risks becoming a mere shadow of the rich and intricate tapestry that it is.
The immediate context for this is the several recent attempts by ID folks to draw simplistic, straight-line paths between Darwin's ideas and the actions of the Nazis.
It really is impressive how creationiss manage to get everything wrong. I recommend reading the whole essay.
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
"It really is impressive how creationism manage to get everything wrong."
This is because when they have no case, then lies, obfuscation, malicious intent, deceit and arrogance are their tools of choice.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob | November 10, 2009 7:36 PM
To expand on a comment left at Lynch's site: the distortions of history employed by creationists are (like creationism itself) a relatively trivial subset of the lies spread quite liberally by the hyperchristian movement as a whole.
Historians have generally neglected to counter the ever-growing myth of "Christian America", just as the medical profession has said too little about the blatant lies of the anti-abortion/abstinence only movement.
It's like criticizing GW Bush for sending troops to fight without sufficient body armor, while swallowing the rest of his crimes and failures without a blink.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 10, 2009 7:41 PM
Religiously motivated tampering with history appears to be more widespread than is commonly known. As an example, the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies website claims that George Washington's inaugural featured a bible opened to Genesis 49:13. The Library of Congress website, attributing its information to the "the Office of the Curator from contemporary accounts and other sources in the files of the Architect of the Capitol", makes the same assertion that the inaugural bible was opened to Genesis 49:13, citing "Bowen, Clarence W. The History of the Centennial Celebration of the Inauguration of George Washington, N.Y. 1892, p. 72". Well, that isn't exactly a contemporary account, its over 100 years later. None of the contemporaneous accounts assert that the bible was open, let alone that it was opened to any particular page, either while it was on the cushion on the table or while it was lifted for George Washington to kiss. The inaugural bible being opened to Genesis 49:13 isn't U.S. inaugural history and it is irresponsible for our government institutions to be asserting otherwise.
Posted by: Explicit Atheist | November 10, 2009 9:16 PM
Many creationists think the whole world is only 6ooo years old, and they have been saying so at the top of their voices for years. How the hell is this distortion/compression/monumentally fucking up of ALL history 'flying under the radar'? It is not even 'lying' under the radar.
Posted by: Tex | November 10, 2009 9:38 PM
Even if a straight line could be drawn between Darwin and Hitler, it would not invalidate his ideas. (Darwin's, I mean. Hitler's ideas can be invalidated on their own 'merits'.)
There is a very straight line from Einstein's theories to the deaths of over 100,000 people already and the potential anhilation of the entire human race, but no one uses this connection to argue against relativity.
Posted by: Tex | November 10, 2009 9:44 PM
If you ask creationists you'd get the impression that the very idea that the strong tend to prosper originated with Darwin. David Klinghoffer has used that superficial interpretation to claim that Darwin was responsible for everything from Nazism to robber-baron capitalism to revolutionary Communism. And although he's only the most blatant in his dishonesty, if you look at most attempts to link Darwin to history's evils, you'll find that there isn't much more to them than that.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 10, 2009 10:05 PM
Re Tex
As Mr. Tex points out, it matters not a fig if everything said about Darwin was correct and accurate (of course, it is nothing but a tissue of lies). From a scientific point of view, Darwin was either right or wrong and his political views are irrelevant. One could point out that Johannes Stark was a member of the Nazi Party in Germany and a leading proponent of "Aryan Science" which denied Einsteins' theory of relativity because of the latters' ethnic origins. That in no way, shape, form, or regard means that the Stark effect is a fraud or that Prof. Starks' Nobel Prize was fraudulent. Of course, the ID clowns, knowing that their scientific foundation is fraudulent, have turned to character assassination to promote their position. It's the old story, when arguments fail, call names.
Posted by: SLC | November 11, 2009 8:05 AM
You know, even if there *was* a direct path from Darwin to Nazis-- if Hitler himself said "I got the whole idea for everything from reading "Origin"-- what does that have to do with whether evolution is true or not? Something is either true (happened) or not; whether a bad person believes in it or not is irrlevant. I'm pretty sure Hitler believed in germs and gravity too. Does that invalidate germ and gravity theory too?
Posted by: Max | November 12, 2009 3:29 PM
Actually, it's been argued that Hitler and other Nazis were in fact influenced by germ theory in coming up the Final Solution.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 12, 2009 3:53 PM
There has come up a new book entitled “Extraterrestrial Intelligence: Amazing New Insights from Qur’an...” It quotes extensively from Qur’an to prove in an extremely amazing and convincing idiom that biological evolution isn’t at all at variance with the true teachings of the Qur’an. The book is also available online at HarperCollins' website Authonomy: http://www.authonomy.com/ViewBook.aspx?bookid=11309
Posted by: Tahseen | November 16, 2009 12:43 PM
Surely "Creation Science" has to be one of the ultimate contradiction in terms!
Posted by: Barry Johnstone. | November 18, 2009 4:29 AM