Lie like an Editor

Despite the fact that the Evidence 4 Faith podcast is on hiatus, the site’s Facebook page is alive and well. I was recently directed to a post containing the following graphic.

If you have trouble reading the text, it says:

Avoid Debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to ‘defend evolution,’ please decline. … you probably will get beaten.

That’s quite a statement from the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). It sounds like an open admission of some rather significant flaws in evolutionary theory. The tenor changes a bit when you read the full quote.

"*Avoid Debates*. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to "defend evolution," please decline. Public debates rarely change many minds; creationists stage them mainly in the hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences. Have you ever watched the Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Federals? The Federals get off some good shots, but who remembers them? The purpose of the game is to see the Globetrotters beat the other team. And you probably will get beaten. In such a forum, scientific experts often try to pack a semester-long course into an hour, hoping to convey the huge sweep of evolution, the towering importance of its ideas, the masses of evidence in its favor. Creationist debaters know better. They come well prepared with an arsenal of crisp, clear, superficially attractive anti-evolutionary arguments--fallacious ones, yes, but far too many for you to answer in the time provided. Even if you win the debate in some technical sense, most of the audience will still walk away from it convinced that your opponent has a great new science that the schools should hear about. Teachers have enough problems. Above all else, do no harm."

I’ve bolded the portions that were cut out of the cute creationist graphic. Notice how the meaning changes dramatically when you look at the rest of the quote. Far from admitting any factual failings, it makes some rather insightful and unflattering observations about how Creationists tend to debate. Having been a Creationist when I was younger, I’m quite familiar with the tactics she’s discussing.

The graphic is a spectacular example of how to lie through editing. The true genius of this form of deception is that the people defending the graphic can use the technical fact that these were her words, moving the goalposts away from the fact that they were edited to radically change their original meaning.

Despite my moral objection to lying, I have to confess the person who edited the quote as it appears in the graphic is a master of deception. Satan would be proud of how they’ve created a half-truth.

I tried discussing my concerns with the folks at Evidence 4 Faith, but they deleted my comments and banned me from their page. Frankly, I’m not surprised. Kirk Hastings is among their number, and he does have a tendency to do just that whenever he’s confronted with a question he can’t answer or a criticism that’s over his head.

Not long after my comments were deleted, Freedom From Atheistic Scientism made the following post:

It's the original quote with some commentary added by an individual assumed to be Kirk Hastings. The additions are bolded below:

Freedom From Atheistic Scientism wrote: "Of course, now atheists are falsely claiming posting the quote above is "quote mining". Here is the full quote by Scott: "Avoid Debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to 'defend evolution,' please decline. Public debates rarely change many minds; creationists stage them mainly in the hope of drawing large sympathetic audiences (NOTE: AND ATHEISTS WOULDN'T DO THIS IF THEY COULD?). Have you ever watched the Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Federals? The Federals get off some good shots, but who remembers them? The purpose of the game is to see the Globetrotters beat the other team (ISN'T THAT THE POINT OF MOST DEBATES?). And you probably will get beaten (RIGHT!). In such a forum, scientific experts often try to pack a semester-long course into an hour, hoping to convey the huge sweep of evolution, the towering importance of its ideas, the masses of evidence in its favor (THIS IS ALL TOTAL BIASED B.S.!). Creationist debaters know better. They come well prepared with an arsenal of crisp, clear, superficially attractive anti-evolutionary arguments (RIGHT!)--fallacious ones, yes (NO--ANOTHER FALSE, TOTALLY BIASED STATEMENT), but far too many for you to answer in the time provided (LIKE ATHEISTS NEVER TRY TO DO THE SAME THING?). Even if you win the debate in some technical sense (WHICH EVOLUTIONISTS NEVER DO), most of the audience will still walk away from it convinced that your opponent has a great new science that the schools should hear about (BECAUSE CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS MAKE SENSE AND ARE COHERENT AND SCIENTIFIC!). Teachers have enough problems (SO WHAT?). Above all else, do no harm (RIGHT--THAT'S WHY EVOLUTIONISTS SHOULD NOT DEBATE; THEY CAUSE TOO MUCH INTELLECTUAL HARM).""

Let's take a closer look at each of these rants.

Of course, now atheists are falsely claiming posting the quote above is "quote mining". Here is the full quote by Scott:

The first thing I noticed was, aside from the claim that the accusations of quote-mining were false, there's nothing in the rant that attempts to refute the accusation of quote-mining.

There's nothing false about the accusation. It is quote-mining. As an aside, I was one of the people making the accusation but I'm not an atheist. Kirk Hastings seems to have trouble comprehending the fact that there are people who disagree with him who do not conform to the straw man image he has of his opponents.

(NOTE: AND ATHEISTS WOULDN'T DO THIS IF THEY COULD?)

It's sad to see a grown adult using the "Well, I think they're doing it so I can too!" defense, formally known as the tu quoque logical fallacy. If you're going to claim a moral high ground, an ethical superiority over your opponents, as Kirk tries to do in his "Questions to Darwinists," you should actually hold yourself to a higher moral standard. With a single line, Kirk is admitting he lacks any kind of moral high ground over the people he's attacking. "I have become what I beheld and I am content that I have done right!" may be a fine line for a movie about Prohibition-era mob crime, but it's not a moral standard for an alleged apologist supposedly trying to engage in evangelism. Admitting you're willing to engage in a Pious Fraud if your opponent does the same is stooping to their level, not the act of a righteous man.

Just because your opponent is willing to do it is no reason to do it yourself, especially if you claim to have  a moral high ground against that opponent.

ISN'T THAT THE POINT OF MOST DEBATES?

This is a fascinating line, because it tells us how Kirk sees debates. To him, it appears to be not about laying out the facts, but defeating his opponent. There's no indication of a willingness or desire to learn on his part. By this point in his mini-rant, he has admitted he not only has an agenda but he's willing to do anything he thinks his opponent is doing in order to achieve it. This extreme moral flexibility is even more alarming given the complete failure of Kirk Hastings to understand science or his critics,

RIGHT!

This is probably the most innocuous line in his mini-rant, because all he's really doing is agreeing with Ms. Scott. They of course have very different reasons for this moment of agreement, but that's to be expected given their opposing viewpoints.

THIS IS ALL TOTAL BIASED B.S.!

It's important to note what, specifically, Kirk is calling B.S. here.

In such a forum, scientific experts often try to pack a semester-long course into an hour, hoping to convey the huge sweep of evolution, the towering importance of its ideas, the masses of evidence in its favor - Eugenie Scott

As illustrated numerous times in my series of articles responding to Kirk's "Ten Questions for Darwinists" he simply does not understand the science he's trying to use against the theory of Evolution. It is therefore unsurprising that he lacks the self-awareness necessary to realize the need to educate an audience to help them see the flaws in Creationist responses to Evolution. It's unsurprising that someone using a profound misunderstanding of science to argue science would consider the education needed to understand science to be "B.S."

RIGHT!

Another moment of agreement.

 NO--ANOTHER FALSE, TOTALLY BIASED STATEMENT

It's not surprising Kirk is getting ruffled by his arguments being called "fallacious." This is the kind of willful ignorance and refusal to learn he demonstrated in his replies to Charles Morrison's review of Kirk's "What is Truth." his replies were, frankly, an embarrassment. Charles gave thoughtful, articulate criticisms of specific statements from Kirk's book. Kirk's replies, particularly on the topics of Thermodynamics and Statistics, gave the impression of not only an unwillingness to learn and improve, but a flat out refusal to even try. Read the exchanges for yourself and be amazed.

LIKE ATHEISTS NEVER TRY TO DO THE SAME THING?

Again, a return to the grotesquely immoral "Well, they do it too!" defense. I'm disgusted to see such willful debasement of morality from a man who claims to be religious. This is the same justification used when Americans used torture as an interrogation tactic during George W. Bush's presidency. How, exactly, does Kirk Hastings expect to be blessed by God if he's willing to jettison objective morality so easily and completely?

The specific behavior Hastings is trying to defend is the Gish Gallop, named for its creator, creationist Duane Gish

...the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."
The formal debating term for this is spreading.^[1][2] It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call bullshit on the practice (like the Internet) such techniques are remarkably common. - Gish Gallop

The Gish Gallop is one reason I don't do live debates myself. I prefer the opportunity to take my time and address each of my opponent's arguments, instead of letting them gain an rhetorical edge by being able to lie faster than I can tell the truth. Since Hastings has already admitted he's happy to use whatever tactics he believes his opponents to be using and he's accused others of using the same tactic, it's quite clear that he can't be trusted to avoid the tactic in his own debates.

WHICH EVOLUTIONISTS NEVER DO

Sadly for Kirk, Evolutions do win debates with Creationists.

Even A Christian Website Poll Says Bill Nye Pummeled Ken Ham In The Creation Debate

BECAUSE CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS MAKE SENSE AND ARE COHERENT AND SCIENTIFIC!

A fascinating claim from a man who, as evidenced by his own words in the content linked to form this post, does not understand science in any meaningful way. He is in no position to judge the coherence of Creationism, because he himself does not understand the science he is trying to argue against.

SO WHAT?

The callous disregard for his fellow human beings is sickening. He is very vocal about admitting he does not care that "Teachers have enough problems." Who cares if you make a teacher's job harder by engaging in a fruitless debate about if religious dogma belongs in science class? I care, you may care, but according to his own words, Kirk Hastings does not.

Naturally, Scott cares, because she is an educator, speaking about the problems of educators.

RIGHT--THAT'S WHY EVOLUTIONISTS SHOULD NOT DEBATE; THEY CAUSE TOO MUCH INTELLECTUAL HARM

I'd already long believed that Kirk Hastings wishes to silence debate instead of engage in it. His responses to the criticism from Charles Morrison provides evidence of this tendency, as does his habit of banning  people from the assorted pages he creates on Facebook.

The overall moral picture offered by the Kirk's mini-rant is not a flattering one. We see a complete disregard for the open exchange of ideas, hostility towards divergent viewpoints, and a refusal to learn, all combined with gleefully bragging about his lack of objective morality. He succinctly mirrors the behavior an attitudes he accuses "Darwinsists" of having, apparently oblivious to his hypocrisy.

Kirk presumably set out to defend himself from accusations of quote-mining, but ended up giving us rationalizations to justify the very quote-mining he denies. He is, in essence, declaring, "I didn't do it, but I was right to do it and there was nothing wrong with doing it."