Undeception

A one-minute podcast that often has some interesting little tidbits of historical trivia, generally sharing my perspective, came out with an episode two days ago (March 9) that I just listened to today. Without my telling you, I want you to guess who this podcast is from. This is what was said:

Evolutionists contend that ancient man was intellectually inferior to modern man. This theory does not fit the facts: the intellectual capacity of ancient man is no different from modern man because God created us in His image. We should expect to find evidence of that creative capacity soon after Creation — and we do. No one has been able to duplicate the pyramids in Egypt. Heron of Alexandria [was a remarkable early engineer, a few of whose inventions are briefly described in the podcast.] These are just a few examples of the intellect of ancient man that refute the claims of evolutionists.

Doubtless there will be people who listen to this and, since it comes from the head of a Christian ministry, accept it at face value. Whether they are just happy to accept anything that pooh-poohs evolution (no matter how unjustly it represents it), are lacking critical thinking skills (only a modicum of which would throw the quote above on its head), or are simply gullible (“This person has a Christian ministry, and Christian ministers always say good stuff”), I want to make it clear that I am not targeting them but the actual close-minded individual (notice I didn’t say “nincompoop”, an emotive pejorative I would like to avoid) propagating this nonsense.

People who take on a leadership role in educating Christians should at the very least get one or two facts straight about the subject they’re critiquing. I’m going to spend a whole lot more time on this than it deserves, in part to show how inane and indefensible these sorts of attacks usually are and also to point out an example of someone whose stance on many issues I respect and share but who still requires accountability for spreading stupidity.

Do “evolutionists”, by which this person means virtually everyone involved in the scientific disciplines, claim that “ancient man was intellectually inferior to modern man”? One can’t resort to trying to find a quotation from some scientist saying this sometime in the past, as the barb was quite specific: the claim was that an unqualified group referred to as “evolutionists” contend (present tense) that this is so. But there’s also no small ambiguity in the use of “ancient” vs. “modern” (more on that in a minute).

The argument that “because God created us in His image” necessitates a continuity of intellectual capacity in humans implies something I think this person would reject under different circumstances: are there not humans even today with lower intellectual capacity than many other humans, individuals not capable of engineering pyramids and aeolipiles? Are such individuals not, therefore, made in the image of God? Apart from any scientific objections to common descent, there’s some significant question begging going on with the implied definition of “image of God”; there is considerable debate over what exactly the imago dei is, even among purveyors of folk science. The assumption here seems to be that it is the “creative capacity” (in the next sentence) that is a sign of the image of God, a wildly problematic position considering the evidence of creative capacity (which in the context of the podcast concerns invention) in creatures even outside the particularly intellectual primate family. No, no animal has ever made a primitive engine as did Hero(n) of Alexandria, but then again, neither have — or could — I!  (Of course, one might respond by saying that this is because my own image of God has probably been revoked because of my stance on evolution…)

The next statement, “We should expect to find evidence of that creative capacity soon after Creation — and we do,” is stupefying. If this person expects that the adduced examples of invention are evidence of this capacity “soon after Creation”, we must reckon the creation to have occurred “soon” before the pyramids, c. 2000 BC!  This gives us the creation of the world taking place a shade over four thousand years ago.  Talk about “young earth” creationism — that’s well before even Bishop Ussher’s date!  Considering that we have archaeological evidence of people, ostensibly bearing the image of God also, thousands of years before the pyramids who lived and died without creating such monumental inventions as described in this podcast (and for that matter, people groups discovered in fairly recent times who somehow never got around to exercising their “creative capacity” by inventing the wheel), we have some major problems here.

Moreover, what thinking individual would consider denying, as this person claims that “evolutionists” do, the intellectual capacity of the humans who engineered the pyramids? These humans are only relatively ancient: modern man emerged some 200,000 years ago.

Does this person honestly think that any of that drivel on the podcast makes any sort of credible claim about evolution, or the “intellectual capacity” of those who accept it? First comes a truthful statement, that scientists believe early humans were intellectually “inferior” to humans alive today; surely our species has advanced over hundreds of millennia. Then by sleight of hand worthy of Kent Hovind, this person pretends that evolutionary theory contradicts itself by pointing to a claim that “evolutionists” never considered making (“ancient” Egyptians were too intellectually inferior to create anything complex).

So, do “evolutionists” contend that “ancient man” as defined by the given examples (Old Kingdom Egyptians or Greeks of the first millennium B.C.) was “intellectually inferior to modern man”?  Of course not.  Naturally, this person’s dismissive parting shot, a claim to have refuted this non-existent contention, hit its target, which was also its source: thin air.

This little minute-long rant was either an intentional gross mischaracterization from an individual who is actually informed but bent on misrepresenting the rudiments of evolutionary theory, or it was an unmistakable sign that this individual doesn’t know the topic well enough to even begin discussing it, much less talk about “refuting” anything. I’m undecided. What do you think?  And who was this mysterious podcaster?*  (Keep in mind when answering these questions that this individual has written whole books attacking “Darwinism”.)

* I say “podcaster” — but this person is known more for books, public speaking, and radio shows than for podcasting.

March 11th, 2009

Tags: creationism, evolution