Does denial of evolution constitute fraud perpetrated by religious organizations?

Question

So I'm stealing this idea from an Answer I read in one of my Contact's posts a long time ago, so I hope he doesn't mind.

Anyway, he mentioned that we would never tolerate this kind of "fraud" from any non-religious organization, and I started thinking... He's right, but does "religious freedom" extend to the right to misrepresent the work of others? For example, numerous creationist authors use misleading quotations from scientists, ID advocates have (apparently) designed their movement not out of religious doctrine but through the use of media advisors and legal experts.

Should we (scientists) all file suit for denegration of our profession? Is that even possible?

Answer 1

Well it is fraud ... but from a legal point of view, in order to be able to sue somebody you have to be able to show *damages*.

It's hard for scientists,or even the scientific community, to show any direct *damages* from creationists. Quite simply, creationists are barely a blip on the radar of science. It doesn't change the results science. It doesn't cost scientists their jobs, or tenure, or get them rejections from scientific journals. It doesn't seem to be impacting funding (as universities take creationism as seriously as scientists do).

Creationists are an annoyance to scientists, but little more.

The people (IMO) who should sue are the good faithful Christians whose leaders have filled them with this nonsense. Their kids have a *hard* time understanding science, will be less likely to pursue careers in science, will have a *much* harder time pursuing medical careers ... or really any career that requires trained critical thinking (like becoming a lawyer). (And before giving me examples of Creationist doctors and lawyers, I'm not saying it's impossible ... just that it makes it *much* harder to pursue these careers when you have developed the kind of thinking that allows you to accept that the earth is 6,000 years old because the Bible says so, and ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary ... that kind of mindset requires an inability to evaluate evidence that would make becoming a doctor or lawyer almost insurmountable.)

(Of course, parents and organizations have successfully sued in courts to overturn legislation about excluding evolution or including creationism in schools and textbooks. But these suits are on 1st Amendment grounds, not fraud.)

(And there is the case of Daniel Chiras ... the author of an Environmental Science textbook, who has filed suit against the Texas Board of Education for rejecting his book after lobbying by religious conservative groups.
http://www3.nsta.org/main/news/stories/nsta_story.php?news_story_ID=48752
But again, this is a suit about censorship on Constitutional grounds ... not fraud, per se.)

Answer 2

The first post shows what creationists lies have done to the theory of evolution. Evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life yet, someone told that person it was.

If you are seriously expecting a real answer then I would post this question in the legal section (Because it is a question I now too would like an answer to). However, if you are just asking because it was a interesting thought (this is probably the more likely of the two possibilities) then my opinion would be I hope so. It would be nice if creationists could only use facts in their arguments. Then scientists would be able to listen and truly "debate" the issue. I feel that science would LOVE new information even if it conflicted with current ideas.

Bottom line...Get legal info from lawyers, Scientific info from scientists and religious info from your leader of choice. Asking scientist for legal info is like asking a religious leader for science info...oh, wait people really do that??!!

Answer 3

Hmm... I may be the guy who's Answer led to this question as I think I remember saying something like this in reference to that new creationist museum. *ahem...*

I actually used the term fraud intentionally at the time. I am an evolutionary biologist, and my colleagues and I have been misquoted and misrepresented in creationist literature from YEC's to ID's. So on a purely personal level, I've always felt that I had grounds to sue (though now I suspect the statute of limitations has run out in my case).

But what I meant was more of a class action kind of fraud. Some of the creationists *clearly* and *obviously* misrepresent what scientists say and indeed, how evolution works. I don't believe it's accidental, but rather intentional. I'm not a lawyer, so haven't given any thought to demonstrating that fact, but it's been demonstrated clearly enough in the ID community (several books).

Instead, I think of the damage to our *field* in terms of perceived value by the general populace. For example, NSF decides what to fund in part due to political pressures. While they fund evolutionary biological research, I wonder if the priority of evol bio isn't diminished by the general public's disregard or anti-evolutionary feelings. I'm certain that NSF officials would say that they don't consider such things, but there's enough literature to show that they really can't escape such influences completely. So has our *field* been damaged... financially and in reputation?

Then comes the excellent point... Are they doing it for financial gain? I'd have to say that they certainly are! Obviously the individual creationists (authors and such) make money on their bs, but so do the organizations that support them, bring them in as guest speakers, pitch their ideas to bring in new members, and so on. Now... is *that* money that would otherwise go to science? No, I don't think so. But it does contribute to further defamation of science.

My original thinking was in terms of analogy... We fight against all misrepresentation, particularly when it's misrepresentation that involves lots of money changing hands. ...not sure how much money there is, but religions bring in a lot of cash based in part on premises that are *demonstrably* false, such as the creation myth of the Abrahamic religions.

I admit that when I brought it up, it was only a half-baked notion, and it's not really baked any longer in my brain since I said it. So as a result, I'm not attached to the idea. That said, the next time I'm misrepresented in creationist propaganda, I will consult a lawyer.

Answer 4

I'm not sure what sort of point you're trying to make. All you are providing here is evidence that some people believe evolution is false without making any sort of arguments of your own. The arguments on these particular websites point largely to ill-examined or fraudulent specimens selected by scientists who were probably desperate to publish for funding and/or recognition. None of the arguments you have listed attempt to undermine the fundamental genetic mechanisms behind evolution, nor do they attempt to explain why the Earth as it is observed is so hostile to a rote creationist account. The best any creationist could hope to make a case for is intelligently-accelerated evolution or periodic bouts of creation, but seeing as to how most "intelligent design" advocates are really pushing Jesus and a literal, modern-day radical Protestant interpretation of Genesis, we both know that's not going to happen.

Answer 5

There are no laws against self-delusion or telling lies.

Unless an individual or an organization is perpetrating a fraud for financial gain it is not an actionable fraud.

Unless a scientist is unjustly defamed and his reputation is damaged there is no action for libel.

The best way for scientists to win the arguments with creationists is to be very well prepared and to debate with them. Most scientists who take evolution for granted are just not ready for the onslaught of bizarre arguments, twisted facts and out-of-context quotes that they encounter in a debate with a creationist.

Answer 6

I like the angle... though I'm not sure that it's fair to blame them for their own perverse ignorance -- they are "differently rational"...

It often happens (as in Mastermind's reply and others) that there is confusion between evolution and the explanation for it.

Evolution is a demonstrable fact. It's even agreed by the "intelligent design" advocates -- they have to admit that the evidence that organisms have evolved is incontrovertible. The difference between them and scientists is that they think it happened with a magic guiding hand, and scientists have a much better theory, that of natural selection.

The confusion comes from the phrase "theory of evolution by natural selection". It's two things, not one: the theory of natural selection explains the fact of evolution. The theory of gravity explains the fact of falling -- saying "the theory of falling by gravity" doesn't make falling a theory.

The realisation that evolution had happened was around long long before Darwin and Wallace came up with a mechanism which could work (published 1859). In fact, in 1796 Charles Darwin's own grandfather Erasmus Darwin wrote an epic poem based on the idea ("Zoonomia"), and Lamarck, among others, tried to come up with rational mechanisms for it.

Of course creationists (as opposed to ID-ists), do deny the fact of evolution altogether, which is much like denying salt or rain. It is not true to say there are no facts in science!

Some people have argued that natural selection is not a true scientific theory, as you cannot prove the cause of a historical fact -- and strictly that is true with respect to the historical occurrence of evolution. Natural explanation can easily explain the historical fact of evolution, but we can never prove that it happened that way, because we have no time machine.

It has of course been abundantly proven that natural selection does cause evolution in real time (that's why we have to worry about MRSA in hospitals), but in the time we have available only relatively small amounts of evolution can happen. This is why creationists often say they only believe in "micro-evolution" -- they limit their denial to evolution which cannot be touched by experiments in realistic timescales. I predict that their denial will retreat as experiment progresses -- and yes, that does demonstrate an essential dishonesty.

The amazing strength of the natural selection hypothesis is that as far as anyone has been able to show, it cannot NOT work. Any system with inherited variation of fitness has to evolve -- and we know that natural species do have those features. It would take the same sort of magic to stop it as the creationists and (not-so-)intelligent designists pretend made the amazing natural variety in the first place. For example, zoo managers need complex breeding programmes to prevent zoo animals evolving over the generations to suit the zoo environment instead of the wild one -- preventing evolution is hard work!

What irritates me is people denying something they do not take the trouble to understand -- and I have never yet heard anyone argue against natural selection who clearly understood it properly.

Deny it if you like -- it's your right to be as foolish as you wish -- but don't pretend you are doing it rationally. Do not muddle fact and belief.

Answer 7

Ok, I have to admit that both creationism and ID both make me angry, it's not their cunning arguments; it's just that their sheer stupidity undermines my faith in us as a species. I will however try to keep my personal issues out of this and be impartial. To save time I will however be calling them both creationism as I feel that as they both attempt to crowbar god into a scientific theory there is no need to distinguish between them in this context.

I think that unless you can demonstrate that creationists deliberately and maliciously attempt to mislead people then you don't really have a case for fraud. I feel that this is especially relevant, as if you did not really believe in god then there would be no need to support creationism, as you would gain nothing other than to make yourself look foolish by propagating a theory which allies itself with making things up and shouting "La la la, I am not listening to you!"

As far as libel goes, I am not an evolutionary biologist, palaeontologist, or geologist (I research heart disease) and as such creationists are unlikely to be able to manipulate my research into supporting their theories. I do feel however that if they somehow managed to misrepresent my results or to deliberately misquote me to make it appear that I supported their theories then this would alter my standing in the scientific community by making me look like a creationist idiot. This could be argued to be a defamation of my character which could well be the basis of a libel claim. I don't believe (in UK law at least) that it would be necessary to conclusively prove evolution in order to pursue my claim.

Edit:
Just had a look at some of the answers which have appeared whilst I was writing the above, a lot of people have seemed to have picked up on an interesting point, namely that most creationists genuinely believe the rubbish they are talking, and have an incomplete (at best!) understanding of evolutionary theory. It is not these poor simple minded little sheep who are to blame (if in fact anyone is to blame) it is the big bad shepherds who are forcing this crap down their throats...

Answer 8

well...in the 1st chapter in the Bible it says that man came from the dust of the earth and God breathed life into him. And that eve came from Adam...I don't see why creationists have a problem with evolution. It's clear as day in the Bible that man came from nonliving materials and that man was produced from him self. What is that called asexual reproduction? Don't Single cell organisms reproduce in the same way?

Answer 9

When taking about the scientific method that are no facts only hypothesis and theories. Theories which are generally accepted until someone proves them wrong and start as hypothesis' and are accepted as theories after observation and/or experimentation support the hypothesis. So if you are going to use the scientific method in your argument please do not use the word "fact".

As for the Theory of evolution it still has not been completely vetted, there are controversial and still unsubstantiated parts of the theory that can't be proven or disproven through science.

While I tend to believe the theory of evolution over the creationism theory, or even the intelligent design theory. I can't condemn the religious institutions for passing on their beliefs in light of the holes in theory of evolution. But if they turn a critical eye to their proposed theory they would also find large unexplained holes in their theory.

Answer 10

If people want to believe something and it does not interfere with your life or rights, then don't worry about it.
Avoid attempting to force your beliefs on everyone else. Isn't that what your trying to accuse religious people of doing?