Is Greg Clarke an Idiot?
Posted by DuaneJul 22
Great example of reductio ad absurdum in a clever piece by John over at Sydney Anglican Heretics last month. He is responding to Greg Clarke’s comments in the Australian christian newspaper Eternity, where Clarke made a fairly strong inference to young earth creationists as “head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears-idiots.”
I was able to find an electronic version of the article at the centre for public christianity for context:
“…people of faith don’t think that you should believe things when the evidence is to the contrary. There might be a few misguided types who think that it is a ‘test of faith’ to believe things when the evidence suggests it isn’t reality, but that is not the position of orthodox Christianity.
“It is for this reason that many Christians in the sciences do not believe in a literal seven-day creation, or in a variety of views about dinosaurs and fossils. They think the evidence is to the contrary. Christians are realists, not head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears idiots. At least, they shouldn’t be. There is no need to be afraid of evidence and knowledge—of course, we will need to interpret it well. It is very fair to reserve judgement about evidence until such investigation has been done, but then we must let the evidence sit and deal with it as best we see it.”
Apart from the implication by Clarke that people who believe in a literal six-day creation are ignorant, misguided or afraid of supposed evidence against their view (I have to say, it is quite the opposite), I rather appreciate the interesting tactical approach by John in resolving confusion over this issue:
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
The question that we have before us today is, Is Greg Clarke really an idiot?
In order to answer this we must set aside, for the moment, our limiting pre-postmodernal preconceptions that would entail taking these words at face value and concluding that the author is literally claiming that Greg Clarke is actually an idiot. What we must do is to examine the evidence, not on a literal level, but a literalistic one. Hence, let us deconstruct the message by taking the priority of form over content. In other words, to garner support from Marshall McLuhan’s famous maxim we can claim that the medium is truly the message.
First, note the repetition. The writer, by claiming seven times that Greg is an idiot, is underscoring a claim of perfection, not Greg’s perfection, of course, but perfection of the message.
Further, each instantiation of ‘Greg Clarke is an idiot’ contains seven syllables, making 7 x 7 or 49 interconnected modules. We can recall from the Old Testament that 49 was traditionally the number used when one wanted to signify divine completion over an extended period of time. Thus, the author of this message is clearly emphasising divine sanction of Greg Clarke being an idiot.
One could go on and on about this pithy declaration, its internal structure and whether or not Greg Clarke is a literal or literalistic idiot. Possibly some background detail may assist our endeavour.
This month in the Christian newspaper Eternity Greg Clarke claimed that young earth creationists, apropos science and the Bible, are not realists but are “head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears-idiots”. Now, try as I might, I found it impossible to uncover any literary devices in his statement so I was forced to take it straightforwardly and conclude that Greg Clarke really meant that I and others were genuine, unadulterated 100% idiots because we hold that God created everything in 6 days.
[Read the rest of the article here]
PDF 
9 comments
Comment by Nocterro on 23 Jul 2010 at 06:11
"literal six-day creation"
Well, there's a problem here. The world was *not* created in six days. To believe such, you have to deny masses of observed evidence from astronomy, biology, and geology (and probably other fields of science as well). Not only that, you have to also be ignorant of the intricacies of ancient Hebrew, as well as the cultural norms in which Genesis was written. It's just a completely and utterly untenable position.
Further problems arise when we examine the other beliefs commonly held by those who embrace a literal six-day creation; such as a young earth and a global flood. Such views are comparable to 9/11 inside jobs, UFO sightings, and moon landing hoaxes. They're ultimately not really worth anyone's time. We just should not take them seriously.
Comment by Duane on 24 Jul 2010 at 04:51
Nocterro,
Thanks for the advice.
As YEC's make quite clear, the "masses of observed evidence" across several fields of science is not the problem. We all live in the same world/universe, so we all have access to the same evidence. But the conclusions one draws from the evidence is demonstrably different depending on your world view. (The opposition to the ID movement is a good example of that. Evolutionists think ID-ers are ignorant of the power of nature to produce things that merely appear to be designed, even though none of them disagree on what is being observed.)
I believe in a six-day creation and young earth, first and foremost, because I think scripture teaches it. I accept that there may be certain Hebrew "intricacies" that I am not appreciating. But then again, I'm sure most people who would have an opposing view, don't know about such intricacies either, which is why we rely on several good translations and commentaries for more info.
Believing in a young earth and global flood is like:
* 9/11 inside jobs – check
* UFO sightings – check
* Moon landing hoaxes – check
Dude, you left out the flat earth ad hominem and that thing about believing that gravity isn't real. People might not feel the weight of your assertion if you forget those. Sometimes I've noticed that having a dig at the stupid Christians who used to believe that illness was caused by demons gets good mileage, but you want to be conservative with the logical fallacies sometimes unless someone notices. ;)
Comment by Nocterro on 24 Jul 2010 at 12:26
"But the conclusions one draws from the evidence is demonstrably different depending on your world view."
That might be a good point, if it weren't for the existence of Christians who accept evolution – for example, Richard Swinburne. We can infer from this that it's not a matter of world views – it's a matter of misinterpreting and/or being ignorant of evidence. But, if you still want to hold to the "world view bias" idea, then please, tell me what exactly in my world view biases me toward evolution.
Furthermore, the explanations of the observed evidence I have seen from many YECs have been nothing more than ridiculous ad-hoc assertions, such as Hovind's "ice shield" and Ken Ham's tricerotops with a saddle on its back.
"I believe in a six-day creation and young earth, first and foremost, because I think scripture teaches it. "
The problem here is this: we're not arguing about what God says vs. what science says; rather, we are arguing about what *you think* God says vs. what science says. I agree that if the bible is the inspired word of God, it takes precedence over empirical findings. However, I still think it's reasonable to side with the empirical findings over any *interpretation* of the bible – especially considering you (presumably) also believe that God created the universe that gives us those findings in the first place, and that people have been wrong about what the bible teaches many, many times in the past. People's attempts to understand the bible just don't have a very good track record at all, while science does.
Comment by Nocterro on 24 Jul 2010 at 12:29
Regarding the ad hominem charge – I haven't committed one. I was not saying "young-earth creationism is similar to these other ideas, therefore it is false". I was saying "young-earth creationism carries similar academic weight to these other ideas, therefore we need not take it seriously". It may still be true (although this is very unlikely), but until it has some solid backing, we need not devote serious time and research to countering it at all.
Comment by Marc on 24 Jul 2010 at 16:54
Nocterro,
Probably wasting my time but…
1. Are you able to read Hebrew script?
2. Please provide a brief list of contemporary YEC books you've actually read.
I'll take a no answer as that you are unable to do/accomplished any of them.
Even as it stands, your initial "response" is vacuous and serves as proof that Plato was at least right in one aspect.
Comment by Nocterro on 25 Jul 2010 at 09:53
1) I am not fluent in Hebrew, however I have studied the relevant passages and important words (such as "yom" and "chugh" in genesis ).
2) I've read (and watched) lots of stuff, and found it all to be not just wrong, but embarrassing. What material do you think is the best? Is there some sort of "golden gem" of YECism that I've missed that effectively counters every single piece of evidence for an old earth/universe observed over the past 200 years? If you think the earth is young, would you perhaps care to discuss this in greater detail via email?
Comment by Duane on 25 Jul 2010 at 14:19
Posioning the well is a special form of ad hominem and that is exactly what you did by comparing belief in a young earth and global flood to "9/11 inside jobs, UFO sightings, and moon landing hoaxes."
Comment by Marc on 27 Jul 2010 at 15:35
Nocterro,
1. Why do you think 'yom' is important?
2. Would you please name one recent book written by a YEC that you've read?
Comment by Duane on 27 Jul 2010 at 15:47
I think I may have unnecessarily complicated things by using the term world view, when all I intended to convey was that presuppositions (justified or otherwise) play a large part in the way we look at the world. So while Swinburne is a Christian, if he accepts evolution, then he’s also an evolutionist. We have a term for that oxymoronic view. It’s called Theistic Evolution and it typically does more harm to one’s view of theology than one’s view of evolutionary science. Belief in evolution ultimately subjects the bible to the authority of an evolutionary world view or reduces it to an empty insignificance, such that it has little or no bearing on science and history.
Regarding the issue of interpretation, the way I understand scientific practice is that a range of theories/models are developed to try to best explain the empirical evidence [and I think I'm granting a big concession in saying that]. You appear to think that evolutionary models do that, by and large. I happen to think that the YEC system makes best sense of the evidence. By “evidence” I do not mean the assertions or conclusions of evolutionary scientists. I mean the plain facts, such as where an object is found, its size and shape, its weight, length and color, the thickness of a sedimentary layer, its isotope composition, the amount of measurable red shift in distant objects, or, phenotypical similarities in different organisms, etc; the kinds of things that all scientists agree on before they begin to interpret it in light of certain theories or models (such as phylogeny, homology, uniformitarianism, big bang cosmology, etc.)
And despite your incredulity at dinosaurs with saddles – which does not bear on the merits at all (ridicule is no substitute for rational discussion) – I trust you at least understand why that notion fits within a YEC world view, even though creationists are not insisting that it must have been the case that people rode dinosaurs.
Nocterro: “… we are arguing about what *you think* God says vs. what science says.”
Thanks, did you miss the part where I said “I believe” and “I think”?
I also think you’re confusing empirical findings with interpretation of those findings. Rock layers and fossils aren’t dug up with the correct interpretation etched into their surfaces and Big Bang cosmology didn’t just fall from the stars. Evidence does not interpret itself. You also appear to be suggesting that “empirical” means anything that a scientist says. So you point to errors in the interpretation of the bible while holding science up on some high pedestal, all the while failing to acknowledge that science itself suffers terribly from false and discarded interpretations, and evolutionists themselves fight constantly about whose interpretation is correct when it comes to the latest fossil find.
As Charles Spurgeon once said:
“You are not to be dogmatical in theology, my brethren, it is wicked; but for scientific men it is the correct thing. … Forsooth, you and I are to take our Bibles and shape and mould our belief according to the evershifting teachings of so-called scientific men. What folly is this! Why, the march of science, falsely so called, through the world may be traced by exploded fallacies and abandoned theories. Former explorers once adored are now ridiculed; the continual wreckings of false hypotheses is a matter of universal notoriety. You may tell where the learned have encamped by the debris left behind of suppositions and theories as plentiful as broken bottles.”
That was about 150 years ago, a demonstration of an age old proverb, there’s nothing new under the sun.