Why aren't the creationists being charged?

[Bunyip]

I have been fascinated for some years in the so called 'creation/evolution controversy'.

The creationist education lobbies such as the Discovery Institute, along with popular speakers such as Hovind (before his conviction), Comfort, Ham and so on repeat the same blunt and proveable lies endlessly - no matter how many times the same objections and falsehoods are challenged and disproven.

The result is that there is no real debate, intead just an endless cycle of repeating the same frauds and misconceptions ad naseum and forcing new opponants to simply start at the beginning every time and address the exact same fallacies that have been repeated every previous time.

Examples of these outright frauds include;

1. That there is any controversy whatsoever that evolution is a fact.
2. That macro-evolution has not been observed.
3. That scientific theories are just guesses.
(I'm sure that others here will be painfully familiar with many other examples)

This sort of con-trick seems to be uniquely tolerated in the US, a dangerous and damaging crime that has direct and serious consequences.

So my question is this;

At what point should people like Comfort, Hovind and the Discovery Institute be held accountable? Where does society reach a point where the obvious sham of debate reaches it's natural limits and a significant fraud perpetrated upon the public is exposed and prosecuted?

Is there a point where a repeating the same lie transitions from being an apologetic to an actionable and deliberate attempt to defraud the public?

If the claims of creationists were tested in court, they would clearly fail. They are false claims, and so why are they permitted to be propogated without legal challenge?
​

 

[Drolefille]

In the US at least, freedom of speech protects you from being sued for being wrong as long as you don't intend to defraud someone. If they genuinely believe the lie, it can't be fraud, can it?

 

[Skwim]

In the US at least, freedom of speech protects you from being sued for being wrong as long as you don't intend to defraud someone. If they genuinely believe the lie, it can't be fraud, can it?

Pretty much this. ↑

 

[Alceste]

That's an interesting question. Certain fundraising efforts that solicit donations on the basis of false or misleading information probably could be prosecuted as fraud, but the constitutional right to free speech and free religion would supersede fraud legislation. So it's the kind of battle one could hypothetically win in a lower court, but it would inevitably be overturned by a higher one.

 

[Sunstone]

The Dover court case as a successful legal challenge to teaching creationism in the schools. The decision of the judge was worded in withering language, too, despite that he was a conservative. But there were no penalties in the case. Just that the court prohibited the teaching of Intelligent Design as science in the public schools.

 

[kashmir]

Why is big business allowed to pollute the earth and instead of meet the proper standards pay off the gov?
Why are some countries destroying the planet and no one seems to care?
That is more important to me than, what creationists do.

 

[Sunstone]

That's an interesting question. Certain fundraising efforts that solicit donations on the basis of false or misleading information probably could be prosecuted as fraud, but the constitutional right to free speech and free religion would supersede fraud legislation. So it's the kind of battle one could hypothetically win in a lower court, but it would inevitably be overturned by a higher one.

Yeah, I was wondering about that. It's an intriguing angle.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes the whole thing does sound very childish, but I think to believe in the stories they believe in you have to be childish.

 

[Bunyip]

In the US at least, freedom of speech protects you from being sued for being wrong as long as you don't intend to defraud someone. If they genuinely believe the lie, it can't be fraud, can it?

Freedom of speech laws do not protect you from trying to teach kids in science class that the moon is made from cheese.

As to your second point, I do not believe for a second that Hovind et al genuinely believe their claims.

Hovind must know in his heart that his doctorate is fake,that he was never a science teacher. He must also know for a fact that his claim 'nobody has ever seen a dog give birth to a non-dog' is a strawman - given the number of times it has been explained to him that a dog giving birth to a non dog would count against evolution not for it.

I do not accept that it is possible for Hovind or Comfort to have spent so many years 'debating' on evolution and yet still have no idea whatsoever what evolution is.

Speaking out of an utter ignorance of the most basic principles of evolution may be excusable at first, but if you are still ignorant of the basic principles of evolution after 30 years of 'debate' - then your ignorance in not genuine, it is fraud.

I want to make it clear that I do not assume the average creationist to be lying, I am referring specifically to the DI, Hovind, Comfort and Ham who have a duty to know what they are taliing about before trying to teach kids.

 

[Revoltingest]

The creationist education lobbies such as the Discovery Institute, along with popular speakers such as Hovind (before his conviction), Comfort, Ham and so on repeat the same blunt and proveable lies endlessly - no matter how many times the same objections and falsehoods are challenged and disproven.

The result is that there is no real debate, intead just an endless cycle of repeating the same frauds and misconceptions ad naseum and forcing new opponants to simply start at the beginning every time and address the exact same fallacies that have been repeated every previous time.

At what point should people like Comfort, Hovind and the Discovery Institute be held accountable? Where does society reach a point where the obvious sham of debate reaches it's natural limits and a significant fraud perpetrated upon the public is exposed and prosecuted?

Is there a point where a repeating the same lie transitions from being an apologetic to an actionable and deliberate attempt to defraud the public?​

You propose a judicial approach which would be dangerous to politicians. Consider the implications of a
politician who solicits donations to his party while lying to the public (eg, a promise you can keep your doctor
under a new health care plan). Could this fraud result in prosecution? Hmmm....I'd be willing to give it a shot.

 

[Reptillian]

I have been fascinated for some years in the so called 'creation/evolution controversy'.

The creationist education lobbies such as the Discovery Institute, along with popular speakers such as Hovind (before his conviction), Comfort, Ham and so on repeat the same blunt and proveable lies endlessly - no matter how many times the same objections and falsehoods are challenged and disproven.

The result is that there is no real debate, intead just an endless cycle of repeating the same frauds and misconceptions ad naseum and forcing new opponants to simply start at the beginning every time and address the exact same fallacies that have been repeated every previous time.

Examples of these outright frauds include;

1. That there is any controversy whatsoever that evolution is a fact.
2. That macro-evolution has not been observed.
3. That scientific theories are just guesses.
(I'm sure that others here will be painfully familiar with many other examples)

This sort of con-trick seems to be uniquely tolerated in the US, a dangerous and damaging crime that has direct and serious consequences.

So my question is this;

At what point should people like Comfort, Hovind and the Discovery Institute be held accountable? Where does society reach a point where the obvious sham of debate reaches it's natural limits and a significant fraud perpetrated upon the public is exposed and prosecuted?

Is there a point where a repeating the same lie transitions from being an apologetic to an actionable and deliberate attempt to defraud the public?

If the claims of creationists were tested in court, they would clearly fail. They are false claims, and so why are they permitted to be propogated without legal challenge?
​

At its core, the Copernican Revolution is what's being debated. Is man just another animal on an average planet in the middle of nowhere, or are we significant beings with some sort of purposeful existence?

 

[Drolefille]

Freedom of speech laws do not protect you from trying to teach kids in science class that the moon is made from cheese.

As to your second point, I do not believe for a second that Hovind et al genuinely believe their claims.

Hovind must know in his heart that his doctorate is fake,that he was never a science teacher. He must also know for a fact that his claim 'nobody has ever seen a dog give birth to a non-dog' is a strawman - given the number of times it has been explained to him that a dog giving birth to a non dog would count against evolution not for it.

I do not accept that it is possible for Hovind or Comfort to have spent so many years 'debating' on evolution and yet still have no idea whatsoever what evolution is.

Speaking out of an utter ignorance of the most basic principles of evolution may be excusable at first, but if you are still ignorant of the basic principles of evolution after 30 years of 'debate' - then your ignorance in not genuine, it is fraud.

I want to make it clear that I do not assume the average creationist to be lying, I am referring specifically to the DI, Hovind, Comfort and Ham who have a duty to know what they are taliing about before trying to teach kids.

That's your belief, and it's fine. But unless you can prove he's secretly laughing to himself about all the idiots he's conned, you really have no angle on it. That's why it's protected, because he is sincere - or has thus far faked it well enough and never been caught. That's a bit like saying the Pope is just faking it well, because while being religious makes sense when you're young and dumb, it's just ridiculous to believe a 70 year old man still has faith.

For me, it seems likeliest that he continually reinforces his beliefs, rather than challenges them. Particularly as doubting now would be throwing his entire life away. That isn't an easy thing to do, and our minds have defense mechanisms to prevent any change, much less life-shattering ones.

As for teaching students - that depends quite a bit on whether you're in a private or public school and who accredits the school.

 

[Bunyip]

You propose a judicial approach which would be dangerous to politicians. Consider the implications of a
politician who solicits donations to his party while lying to the public (eg, a promise you can keep your doctor
under a new health care plan). Could this fraud result in prosecution? Hmmm....I'd be willing to give it a shot.

Could and should result in prosecution.

My reasoning is simply that repeating the same old frauds must at some point reach a natural limit. The creationist groundhog day in which the debate is magicaly reset every morning is getting increasingly absurd and untenable.

 

[Bunyip]

That's your belief, and it's fine. But unless you can prove he's secretly laughing to himself about all the idiots he's conned, you really have no angle on it. That's why it's protected, because he is sincere - or has thus far faked it well enough and never been caught. That's a bit like saying the Pope is just faking it well, because while being religious makes sense when you're young and dumb, it's just ridiculous to believe a 70 year old man still has faith.

The difference here is very clear. Unlike Hovind the Pope does not make easily proveable false claims about his qualifications and about science and biology.

Hovind is making claims that are falsifiable and have been falsified, the Pope is not.

I can fully understand that a person may believe sincerely in god, the point here is not belief in god it is deliberate fraud.

I am referring to the repetition of claims known to be false, proven to be false and repeated anyway.

 

[Skwim]

Freedom of speech laws do not protect you from trying to teach kids in science class that the moon is made from cheese.

As to your second point, I do not believe for a second that Hovind et al genuinely believe their claims.

Hovind must know in his heart that his doctorate is fake,that he was never a science teacher. He must also know for a fact that his claim 'nobody has ever seen a dog give birth to a non-dog' is a strawman - given the number of times it has been explained to him that a dog giving birth to a non dog would count against evolution not for it.

I do not accept that it is possible for Hovind or Comfort to have spent so many years 'debating' on evolution and yet still have no idea whatsoever what evolution is.

Speaking out of an utter ignorance of the most basic principles of evolution may be excusable at first, but if you are still ignorant of the basic principles of evolution after 30 years of 'debate' - then your ignorance in not genuine, it is fraud.

I want to make it clear that I do not assume the average creationist to be lying, I am referring specifically to the DI, Hovind, Comfort and Ham who have a duty to know what they are taliing about before trying to teach kids.

Thing is, if I want to claim that extraterrestrials are living in abandoned coal mines and are controlling our lives with midnight mind meldings, and ask for donations to spread this story I have every right to do so--whether or not I believe my own story. What I can't do is promise them some sort of benefit from their donation and not deliver that benefit.

 

[Skwim]

Double post

 

[Drolefille]

The difference here is very clear. Unlike Hovind the Pope does not make easily proveable false claims about his qualifications and about science and biology.

Hovind is making claims that are falsifiable and have been falsified, the Pope is not.

But if he believes it, it isn't fraud. You just believe he doesn't believe it. I know people who think that we didn't go to the moon. That's demonstrably false, but they believe it.

And others would argue that the Pope DOES make false claims - it's a bit eye of the beholder on that one.

 

[Bunyip]

Thing is, if I want to claim that extraterrestrials are living in abandoned coal mines and are controlling our lives with midnight mind meldings, and ask for donations to spread this story I have every right to do so--whether or not I believe my own story. What I can't do is promise them some sort of benefit from their donation and not deliver that benefit.

Just like the tobacco lobby.

If you want to claim that tobacco is harmless and go on a lecture tour during which it is discovered that your claim to having scientific expertise is a lie and that you know damn well that tobacco is a leading cause of cancer. Prosecution would be appropriate.

 

[Riverwolf]

Freedom of speech laws do not protect you from trying to teach kids in science class that the moon is made from cheese.

No, they don't. But if the Bible says that the moon is made of cheese, than the freedom of religion laws just might protect you... even though they shouldn't.

As to your second point, I do not believe for a second that Hovind et al genuinely believe their claims.

What position are you in to make that kind of judgment?

Speaking out of an utter ignorance of the most basic principles of evolution may be excusable at first, but if you are still ignorant of the basic principles of evolution after 30 years of 'debate' - then your ignorance in not genuine, it is fraud.

Don't underestimate the length of human stubbornness, especially one born out of a lifelong fear of hellfire.

The longer a deeply personal belief is held, the harder it is to let go as the years go on.

Besides, also don't underestimate the degrees to which evolution is misunderstood even by people who accept its reality. Watch any Star Trek episode written by Brannon Braga, particularly the Voyager episode "Threshold", to see what I mean.

 

[Bunyip]

But if he believes it, it isn't fraud. You just believe he doesn't believe it. I know people who think that we didn't go to the moon. That's demonstrably false, but they believe it.

And others would argue that the Pope DOES make false claims - it's a bit eye of the beholder on that one.

How could Hovind possibly not know that he hasn't got a doctorate?

How could he not be aware of the fact that he never taught science?

I am referring to falsifiable claims only. And do not accept for one second that Hovind in 30 years of lying about evolution is unaware of what the word 'evolution' actually means.