As a Christian I find the “new atheism” debate fascinating.  I’ve studied books on both sides and have to say I’m not very impressed with either side’s arguments.  People on both sides claim to have logic and evidence on their side, but much of their rhetoric looks like empty posturing.  This blog describes what I see as some pretty serious problems in some of the books I’ve read.  I hope that exposing those problems will help improve future books and discussions.

 

Being a Christian myself, I think I ought to start by discussing the errors in a Christian apologist’s book first, so I’ll start with David Marshall’s “The Truth Behind the New Atheism.”

 

Marshall’s book seems to me to be thoroughly ignorant and downright dishonest in many places.  Indeed, its ignorance and dishonesty seem so pervasive that I was surprised that Harvest House Publishers actually published it and that a prominent Christian theology teacher, Dr. Paul Griffiths of the Duke Divinity School, contributed an enthusiastic blurb.  Interestingly, Dr. Griffiths himself wrote a book about lying, so for him to contribute such a blurb to such a dishonest book seems especially curious.  I will notify Marshall, Harvest House Publishers, and Dr. Griffiths about this blog to give them an opportunity to respond.  I don’t think I’ve made any serious mistakes, but if the author and/or his supporters identify any, I will be happy to correct them. 

 

I doubt there are any serious errors though, since Marshall himself has known about most of these allegations for quite a while, and not only has he been unable to refute any of them, he’s actually concocted additional falsehoods in a feeble attempt to defend earlier falsehoods.  It will be interesting to see if Harvest House Publishers and/or Dr. Griffiths have any more integrity than Marshall seems to have.

 

Marshall seems to resent having the falsehoods and other problems in his book pointed out, but I welcome any criticism that points out any errors I may make.  (I especially want to thank Prof. Field, who caught a couple of early ones.)

 

Much of my review here summarizes earlier comments on Marshall’s book by, among others:  Prof. Hector Avalos at John Loftus’ blog (debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com); Prof. Victor Stenger in his book “The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason;” Prof. Richard Field in comments posted on Amazon’s readers’ forums; ArizonaAtheist’s lengthy review at his blog (arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2011/10/truth-behind-new-atheism-definitive.html); and other comments posted at Amazon, including detailed reviews by J. Blilie (http://www.amazon.com/review/R2L9QQFVFRNKYL/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg2?ie=UTF8&asin=0736922121&cdForum=FxYB75520O4SX2&cdPage=2&cdThread=TxFE04CA0N4GLJ&store=books#wasThisHelpful) and Landon Hedrick in the Amazon Reader Forums for Marshall’s book.

 

For ease of reference, I’ve sorted what I see as the major problems in Marshall’s book into seven categories:

 

1.  Obvious falsehoods and out-of-context quotes (For there to be so many obvious falsehoods in a book titled “The Truth …” seems quite remarkable.  Perhaps Marshall isn’t actually all that truthful after all.)

2.  Naked (and probably false) assertions  (Many if not all of these assertions are almost certainly false, which adds to the appearance of Marshall’s dishonesty.  And their nakedness seems to imply a large amount of blind faith, which seems highly problematic for Marshall’s strenuous objections to the “blind faith” meme.)

3.  Apparent plagiarism

4.  Convenient omissions (If Marshall is dealing honestly with the evidence, why does he leave out so many important facts?)

5.  Weird science (Marshall’s utter stupidity and dishonesty seem most obvious when he’s discussing science issues.)

6.  Bias, inconsistencies, and other twisted logic (Many of Marshall’s arguments seem completely illogical, which seems highly problematic for his arguments for the rationality of faith, and the numerous inconsistencies add to the appearance of dishonesty.)

7.  Miscellaneous (by chapter)

 

Three final notes before beginning:  First, Marshall has known about most of these criticisms for several years, but as far as I know has not responded in any substantial manner to more than a handful.  Marshall occasionally compares himself to the Biblical David, who famously slew Goliath, so his evasiveness here seems especially noteworthy.

 

Second, on those relatively rare occasions when Marshall has responded, one of his typical responses is to claim that he’s already torn the criticisms to shreds somewhere else.  Strangely, he seldom provides a specific citation to where the alleged demolition took place.  That combination of arrogance and evasiveness seems to be pretty typical for Marshall, which may help explain why he is accused of being a pathological liar so frequently.

 

Finally, I will try to give specific page numbers for my criticisms, not only as a courtesy to readers who want to do further research or fact-checking themselves, but also because when I pointed out some of the problems in Marshall’s book on previous occasions, he sometimes responded by pretending that his book doesn’t say what it actually says.  He once claimed he couldn’t find any trace anywhere in the book of his calling Meyer a “biologist” (it’s actually on page 42); he repeatedly claimed he never even hinted that naturalism and/or evolution might be self-refuting (there are actually two or three such “hints” in Chapter Five and elsewhere); and he denied “playing the Hitler card” (Marshall actually does that pretty much cover-to-cover, with the first reference to Hitler being as early as page 12, and with an entire section trying to scapegoat Darwinism for the Holocaust in the next to last chapter).  By including specific references, I hope to deter Marshall from engaging in similar evasions this time.

 

So, let’s get started.

 

 

SECTION I:  OBVIOUS FALSEHOODS AND OUT-OF-CONTEXT QUOTES

 

Marshall titles his book “The Truth …,” but this section indicates that many of Marshall’s factual statements are demonstrably false; and Section II lists many more pretty dubious statements for which Marshall fails to provide credible, supporting evidence, which supports the suspicion that he was simply lying about those “facts” too.

 

Marshall frequently accuses others of deliberate dishonesty, frequently without citing even a scrap of specific, credible evidence.  Given the easily documented falsehoods in his book, perhaps Marshall should worry a bit less about others’ integrity, and a bit more about his own.

 

 

1.  Responding to the “blind faith” accusation, Marshall complains that Dennett doesn’t cite any actual Christians (16), but in reality, Dennett does cite at least one, Pascal, a very prominent Christian.

 

2. Marshall complains that Dawkins doesn’t cite any actual Christians either (16), but in reality, Dawkins cites Richard Swinburne, a prominent Christian theologian; Alister McGrath, whom Marshall himself calls “one of the world’s leading experts on the history of Christian thought;” Pascal; and also Martin Luther, arguably one of the most significant Protestant theologians in history. (“The God Delusion,” pp. 58-65; 54; 103-5; and 190, respectively.)

 

Marshall’s falsehood could hardly be more obvious.  One wonders why Harvest House Publishers and Dr. Paul Griffiths of the Duke Divinity School would lend their support to such a flagrant falsehood.

 

3.  Dawkins allegedly defines “faith” as meaning “in the teeth of evidence and reason.”  Marshall vigorously disputes that definition.  “I’ve done the research,” he proudly proclaims, and “For 2000 years Christians have defined faith as inseparable from reason and evidence.” (21-22)

 

Marshall’s so-called “research” apparently didn’t include even the minimum amount needed to verify the accuracy of his Dawkins citation.  If you check Marshall’s footnotes, not only does he cite the wrong author and the wrong book – instead of citing Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” Marshall actually cites J.P. Moreland’s “Love Your God …” –  but even ignoring those blunders, he still doesn’t get the citation right.

 

First, Marshall treats the quote as an actual definition, but in reality, the quote comes from a list of purely hypothetical religious memes that Dawkins was using merely as examples.  For Marshall to treat Dawkins’ hypothetical suggestion as an actual definition seems highly dishonest.

 

Second, Marshall treats the quote as if it referred specifically to Christianity, and that’s simply false too.  If you attend to what Dawkins actually wrote, something that Marshall’s “research” apparently didn’t include, you’ll see that Dawkins was using that particular statement as a hypothetical example of general religious memes, not as an example of a specifically Christian belief.

 

Some of the above errors are relatively trivial.  Anyone can screw up a footnote.  But the quote itself is a key part of a key argument, and Marshall blatantly misrepresents it from start to finish, and an obvious misrepresentation like that, on such an important issue, indicates pretty clearly that Marshall simply can’t be trusted to tell the truth, even about important issues.

 

Hilariously, Marshall uses his own misrepresentation of what Dawkins wrote to excoriate Dawkins for: (i) not paying attention to what McGrath wrote; (ii) repeating his original claim about blind faith; and (iii) maintaining his faith in blind faith “not only without evidence, but ‘in the teeth of the evidence.’”  The fatuity of Marshall using his own misrepresentation as the basis for launching such attacks on Dawkins simply boggles the mind.  On every single point in this case, it is Marshall, not Dawkins, who deserves criticism.  It is Marshall who doesn’t pay attention to what Dawkins wrote, it is Marshall who repeats his falsehood, and it is Marshall who concocted an accusation “not only without evidence, but in the teeth of the evidence.”

 

If Marshall wants to criticize Dawkins’ book, he is free to do so, but HE OUGHT TO ACTUALLY READ THE DARN THING FIRST!

 

4.  Marshall says, “Dawkins … said nothing at all in response to McGrath’s argument about faith.”  (23)  “Nothing”?  Really?  “Nothing”???  I suggest that Marshall read page 54 of TGD again.  He might be surprised at what he finds there. 

 

5.  Marshall claims that even the highly respected skeptic Michael Shermer “recognized” that some of the most common justifications that Christians give for believing in God are “essentially rational.” (24)

 

That’s a blatant falsehood.  If you check Marshall’s source, you’ll see that Shermer actually said pretty much the exact opposite.  In fact, Shermer spent pretty much an entire section of his book explaining why those specific justifications should *not* be regarded as rational.

 

This is a major argument, and Marshall’s falsehood could hardly be more obvious.  One wonders why Harvest House Publishers and Dr. Paul Griffiths of the Duke Divinity School would lend their support to such a flagrant falsehood on such an important point.

 

6.  Implying that scientific evidence is no more reliable than the evidence for religious faith, Marshall claims that “In fact, scientific evidence *is* based in faith - exactly the same sort of faith as informed Christians have in God.” (29) (Emphasis in original.)

 

That’s an obvious falsehood, of course.  Scientific evidence generally is independently reproducible, objective, and empirically testable.  The evidence for religious beliefs, notoriously, is not.  For example, where’s the reproducible, objective, empirically testable evidence for transubstantiation?  For papal infallibility?  For a triune God?  Marshall’s falsehood is so flimsy, it completely falls apart when subjected to any scrutiny at all.

 

7.  In a section titled “Hostility Toward Religion” (42), Marshall cites Harris’ statement that “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.” 

 

By presenting the quote out of context, Marshall makes it appear objectionable to a Christian audience, but Harris’ statement was actually made in reference to people who advocate violence, presumably including people like Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki.  In that context, Harris’ comment would undoubtedly be quite acceptable to many Christians, probably including the Christian who said “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me.” (For the identity of that Christian, please see Luke 19:27.)  Taking quotes out of context is highly improper, if not actually dishonest.

 

8.  According to Marshall, “Karl Marx convinced a third of the world … that money was the real problem.” (55) 

 

Marshall seems to believe that he is quite knowledgeable about communism, however, when asked to supply a citation to document this particular claim, he angrily refused.  Hmm.  Perhaps Marshall isn’t quite the expert he thinks.  In any case, the claim is so dubious, and Marshall’s angry refusal to provide documentation is so suspicious, that I think it’s fair to include this as an obvious falsehood.

 

9.  Marshall continues, claiming that, “Communism then proved conclusively that people can hate one another in a cashless society.” (55)

 

Again, this is a highly dubious statement.  Marshall provides no citation to document that any cashless communist society ever existed, nor does he provide any citation to document the level of violence in that alleged society.  The claim is so dubious, and Marshall’s angry refusal when asked to provide documentation for it is so suspicious, that I think it’s fair to include this as an obvious falsehood.    

 

10.  Marshall implies that science confirms that life appears in roughly the pattern reported in Genesis (61). In reality, however, Genesis 2 indicates that humans were the first animal life form on Earth.  I don’t think science really confirms that!

 

11.  In an argument impugning evolution, Marshall says “Darwin himself candidly admitted that some objections were ‘so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered .…’” (62)

 

Marshall’s partial quote makes it look like Darwin thought evolution faced virtually insurmountable objections, but Darwin’s full statement actually says the exact opposite of what Marshall’s partial quote implies.  Here’s the full quote:  “Some of them [i.e., the difficulties facing my theory] are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to the theory.”

 

In short, Marshall’s editing makes it look like Darwin meant the exact opposite of what he actually said.  That’s not just careless, it’s sleazy.

 

Note:  Marshall apparently accepts the validity of much of Darwinian evolution himself, so his incessant attacks on evolution seem puzzling.  My guess is that Marshall thinks that some of his readers might be Christians who do not accept Darwinian evolution, so he keeps taking cheap shots at science in general and evolution in particular in an attempt to pander to them.  That seems pretty sleazy too.  In any case, whatever the explanation for Marshall’s cheap-shot attacks is, I think they make him look both foolish and dishonest.

 

12.  Marshall falsely accuses Dawkins of contradicting himself by claiming that the search for “irreducible complexity” (IC) is both scientific and unscientific.  Here’s Marshall’s accusation:  “Were irreducibly complex organs to be found, Dawkins admitted … evolution would be ruined.  He quoted Darwin as saying the same… and implicitly challenged critics to find such organs.  A few sentences later, [Dawkins] said the search for evidence both he and Darwin admitted would overthrow evolution is ‘fundamentally unscientific.’”  (63)

 

Marshall concocted his false accusation by taking Dawkins’ second statement out of context.  Marshall implies that Dawkins’ second statement related to using IC to disprove evolution, but in reality, Dawkins’ second statement related to using IC as proof of design.  That’s obviously a radically different context, and when read in that context Dawkins’ statement makes perfect sense.

 

Dawkins’ full argument is that IC is scientifically relevant in trying to *falsify evolution* but scientifically irrelevant in trying to *prove ID.*  Since Dawkins’ two statements relate to two radically different functions (disproof vs. proof) in two radically different contexts (evo vs. ID), it’s obvious that they are no more contradictory than a weatherman’s conclusions that “It’s going to be sunny in Miami and cloudy in Murmansk.”  The weatherman’s two conclusions are different but not logically inconsistent, because they refer to two different contexts.  Dawkins’ two conclusions are not logically inconsistent either, for the same reason. 

 

This stuff is so painfully obvious -- Dawkins discusses each of the two different contexts at quite some length and further highlights the difference by putting the two discussions in two separate sub-chapters -- how could Marshall possibly overlook all that?  Apparently, Marshall made no effort whatsoever to report Dawkins’ position accurately, because Marshall has no regard whatsoever for the truth.

 

Interestingly, when Marshall was challenged on this point in Amazon’s discussion forums, he defended his accusation by claiming that Dawkins had basically said that it’s legitimate for evos to point to biological structures that disconfirm evolution, but not for creationists like Behe to do the same thing.  Well, if Dawkins did indeed say that, then Marshall would have a valid point, however, Marshall never provided any citation to where Dawkins actually made the statement that Marshall attributes to him, so in defending himself against the accusation of having uttered one falsehood, Marshall appears to have concocted yet another falsehood.

 

Indeed, the brazenness of Marshall’s dishonesty seems pretty clear from his own book, which reports that Dawkins says, “The creationists are right that, if genuinely irreducible complexity could be properly demonstrated, it would wreck Darwin’s theory.” (63)  So Marshall’s own quotation shows that Dawkins clearly *does* allow creationists like Behe to cite IC as evidence against evolution.  Marshall’s dishonesty seems to know no bounds.

 

13.  Marshall quotes from an e-mail written by Hubert Yockey about an origin-of-life issue and then concludes that “Therefore (Yockey doesn’t suffer fools gladly), Dawkins and his ilk were the real religious fanatics.” (65) 

 

But if you check Marshall’s source, Yockey never even mentions Dawkins in his e-mail, nor does he specifically link any hypothesis to Dawkins.  Yockey’s e-mail was about a particular “pre-biotic soup” hypothesis, and Dawkins has never committed himself to any specific proposal in that regard.  In fact, Dawkins has openly and repeatedly conceded the possibility that the first life on Earth was brought or sent here by intelligent beings from outer space!  So the implication in Marshall’s argument that Yockey was specifically criticizing Dawkins is highly misleading, if not deliberately dishonest.

 

14. Discussing the origin of life, Dawkins claims that in his opinion one in a billion is a really pessimistic estimate of the probability of life arising spontaneously on any given planet.  Marshall says, “He [i.e., Dawkins] calls this ‘the most pessimistic estimate’ …,” and implies that Dawkins is being dishonest, because other estimates are even more pessimistic. (66)  (Marshall makes the accusation of dishonesty quite explicit in some of his Amazon posts.)

 

Marshall’s accusation of dishonesty, even if justifiable, is still pretty amusing, given Marshall’s own, much more obvious and much more frequent falsehoods.

 

I want to be fair to Marshall.  There is at least some chance that Dawkins really did mean that his estimate was “the most pessimistic estimate ever given on the subject,” which is what Marshall seems to be implying.  However, the fact of the matter is that Dawkins didn’t actually and specifically say that; so the implication in Marshall’s claim that Dawkins could only have meant “the most pessimistic estimate ever given on the subject” is simply false.  Marshall’s accusation is not based directly on Dawkins’ own words, rather it’s based on Marshall’s interpretation of Dawkins’ words, and that’s quite a different thing, especially since, as explained in Section V, Weird Science, the evidence seems to indicate that Dawkins meant something quite different from Marshall’s interpretation.

 

The bottom line here is that accusations of dishonesty should not be made lightly.  That Marshall would make such an accusation based on little or no solid evidence seems to say a lot more about Marshall’s scholarly integrity than it does about Dawkins’.

 

15 -16.  Marshall quotes part of Dawkins’ responses to the common, creationist challenges, “What is the use of half an eye?” and “What is the use of half a wing?” Then Marshall complains that Dawkins doesn’t answer the real question, i.e., about missing half of the parts. (74)

 

As discussed in Section V, Weird Science, much of Marshall’s accusation here is just incomprehensible gibberish, but the problem I want to address here is that even worse than being gibberish, Marshall’s argument is also simply and obviously false.  The fact of the matter is that Dawkins does answer the question about missing half of the parts.  What Marshall conveniently leaves out is that Dawkins directed readers to his book “Climbing Mount Improbable" for further information on both eyes and wings. 

 

CMI spends about 60 pages and 40 pages, respectively, on the evolution of eyes and wings, and the discussion in both cases included stages having far, far less than half of the parts.  Regarding the evolution of eyes, Dawkins reports that even some single-celled organisms have functional visual systems. (CMI, p. 142)  A one-celled visual system presumably has only about one multi-millionth of the parts of a multi-million cell system like the human eye.  Presumably, even Marshall isn’t so dishonest as to deny that one multi-millionth is far, far less than one half.  Regarding the evolution of wings, Dawkins reports that some kinds of plankton fly (or float) through the air without any wings at all. (CMI, p. 112)  Presumably, even Marshall isn’t so dishonest as to deny that zero wing-parts is obviously far less than half of whatever number of wing-parts Marshall is babbling about.

 

So the real problem here isn’t eyes or wings lacking half of their parts, rather it’s Marshall’s dishonesty in reporting only half of Dawkins’ argument.

 

17 - 18.  On at least two occasions (76 and 189) Marshall falsely implied that Christians invented science.  In reality, the sciences involved in agriculture, animal husbandry, medicine, metallurgy, and architecture existed for many centuries, if not millennia, before Christ was born; astronomy was widely studied for hundreds of years before Christ was born; and early Islamic scientists made significant advances in both chemistry and optics hundreds of years before the earliest Christian scientist cited as such by Marshall.

 

19.  Marshall claims that “Species do not … change as gradually as Darwin anticipated – something dramatically new appears, then remains much the same for long periods.” (77)

 

That’s another obvious falsehood.  In reality, the evidence found in nature accords very well with Darwin’s prescient advocacy of what is now referred to as “punctuated equilibrium.”  Here are Darwin’s own words:  “... each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.” (On the Origin of Species, 6^th ed., pp. 119-120)  Darwin wrote “Origin” well over 100 years ago.  If Marshall wants to criticize Darwin, he’s free to do so, BUT HE OUGHT TO READ HIS DARN BOOK FIRST!

 

20.  Marshall accuses Dawkins of misrepresenting the story of the vivisected concubine in Judges 19-21. (97)  Marshall argues that the story should not be used as an indictment of religion, because the last verse of Judges makes it clear that “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” 

 

Marshall seems to be misrepresenting what the Bible says.  There were a lot of actors in that lengthy story, many of them were clearly devoted to God, not a single one of them raised any objection to the Levite (who was himself a priest) cutting his concubine up, and many of them went on to commit outrageous acts of sexual violence themselves, after first expressing their devotion to the one true God.

 

21.  Marshall also accuses Dawkins of misrepresenting the story of Jephthah in Judges 11, who sacrificed his own daughter to God.  Marshall again argues that this should not be used as an indictment of religion, because the last verse of Judges makes it clear that “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did was right in his own eyes.” (98) 

 

But once again, it’s actually Marshall who seems to be misrepresenting the Bible.  Judges makes it clear that Jephthah was a God-fearing man who made a deal with God, offering a human sacrifice in return for a military victory, and that God demonstrated his acceptance of the deal by granting Jephthah the military victory he had prayed for.  For Marshall to imply that God played no part in this transaction and the human sacrifice it resulted in seems highly dishonest.

 

22.  Responding to Harris’ comment about how curious it was that God apparently “made Shakespeare a far better writer than Himself,” Marshall claims that “Even Nietzsche thought Luther’s Bible the best thing in German.” (111) 

 

That is probably a flat out lie.  One wonders why Harvest House Publishers and Dr. Paul Griffiths of the Duke Divinity School would support such a dubious claim.

 

23. Apparently trying to emphasize how miraculously prescient the Bible is, Marshall implies that it was written in the Stone Age. (114) 

 

That’s not a misprint.  Marshall really does say “Stone Age,” an obvious exaggeration that seems much more serious than Dawkins’ alleged exaggeration regarding the likelihood of abiogenesis that Marshall denounces so heatedly. (66)

 

Marshall’s falsehood could hardly be more obvious.  One wonders why Harvest House Publishers and Dr. Paul Griffiths of the Duke Divinity School would lend their support to such a flagrant falsehood.

 

24.  Marshall says, “Evangelical Christians led the movement against slavery in England and America, and England led the world.” (146)  Bzzzt!  Wrong.  As Avalos points out, “In 1791, Haiti became the first country where slaves successfully overthrew their slavemasters (Christian slavemasters in this case), and founded a new nation. Those slaves were heavily influenced by Voodoo and other African traditions rather than just Christianity.”

 

25.  Marshall claims that “Some old folks in ‘progressive’ Holland now die involuntarily at the hands of their own doctors.” (182) 

 

Another inflammatory falsehood, apparently designed deliberately to mislead.  While it is undeniable that sick people don’t always get better, and therefore “die involuntarily at the hands of their own doctors,” not only in Holland, but probably everywhere that medicine is practiced, for Marshall to imply that doctors in Holland are legally authorized to deliberately kill old people against their will seems a monstrous lie indeed.

 

26 - 27.  Marshall says: “After telling us he ‘dislikes unfairness even more’ than religion, Dawkins says that being brought up Catholic is ‘undoubtedly’ worse than child abuse!” (185) 

 

This is a two-fer, with Marshall uttering two falsehoods. 

 

First, regarding Dawkins allegedly disliking religion, if you check Marshall’s source, you’ll find that Dawkins was talking about disliking the Catholic Church (which was then enmeshed in the child sex abuse scandal), not about disliking religion.  I suspect that Marshall knew that if he told the truth here, a lot of his readers would agree with Dawkins about disliking the Catholic Church, especially in the midst of such a scandal, and Marshall didn’t want his readers to agree with Dawkins, so he simply lied about what Dawkins actually said to make Dawkins look more objectionable.

 

Second, regarding the alleged claim that being raised Catholic is “undoubtedly” worse than child abuse, if you check the citation, what Dawkins actually said was that it was “arguably” worse;” and then Dawkins reported about a correspondent’s letter that claimed that *in her particular case* *she herself* considered that a *particular belief* that she’d been taught as a little girl (i.e., that one of her little friends had been condemned to hell when she died, merely because she was a Protestant) was far worse *in her opinion* than a *particular* incident of abuse she had experienced.  Dawkins then concluded that the example showed that it is “at least possible” for psychological abuse of children to out-class physical.  Marshall turns Dawkins’ nuanced, fairly reasonable argument into something much more controversial by changing the key word from “arguably” to “undoubtedly” and by simply ignoring the concrete example Dawkins provided.  Again, I suspect that Marshall knew that if he told the full truth here, his Protestant readers would’ve agreed with Dawkins’ correspondent about disliking the teaching that Protestants always go to hell, and so Marshall simply told a contemptible lie about what Dawkins actually said to make Dawkins look more objectionable.

 

Marshall’s two misrepresentations here are so obvious as to appear deliberately dishonest, and there’s simply no justification for that.  If Marshall wants to title his book “The Truth …,” THEN HE SHOULD IN FACT TELL THE TRUTH!

 

28.  Marshall claims that the cause of the Holocaust was “simple,” i.e., “Having rejected Christian morality, some of Darwin’s followers derived their ethics from evolution....” (194)

 

I debated what category to put this whopper in, but finally decided that it is such a stunning falsehood that it really deserves to be categorized as such.  There are three main reasons for my conclusion.  First, I think the various political, economic, social, and other factors that led up to the Holocaust are so well known that no reasonably educated person could possibly believe Marshall’s ridiculous claim.  Marshall himself seems to acknowledge the need to consider multiple factors, since he reports that at least three factors contributed to the Inquisition. (159)  So his failure to acknowledge similar complexities in the case of the Holocaust seems that much more suspicious.  Second, Marshall’s only cited source for the relevant facts related in this section of the book is Richard Weikart’s “From Darwin to Hitler,” and Weikart himself emphatically disavows conclusions like Marshall’s.  “It would be foolish to blame Darwinism for the Holocaust ….” (“From Darwin to Hitler;” p. 232)  Third, even in the absence of Weikart’s explicit disapproval, the evidence Marshall produces to support his conclusion is so hopelessly inadequate, no reasonable person could possibly arrive at Marshall’s conclusion merely from that evidence.  To take just two very obvious examples, Marshall stresses the role of Social Darwinism in Nazi thought, but the obvious problem for Marshall is that he presents no credible evidence whatsoever to show that Social Darwinism is necessarily opposed to “Christian morality,” whatever that means.  (It is undoubtedly true that *some* Christians opposed Social Darwinism, but it is also undoubtedly true that *many* Christians enthusiastically embraced it.)  And the same is true for eugenics, which both Weikart and Marshall discuss at some length.  Those are just some of the massive problems with Marshall’s evidence.  For those three reasons, it seems appropriate to conclude that Marshall’s bizarre conclusion is probably not based on rational analysis, but rather is a deliberate falsehood.

 

29.  Hilariously, Marshall says “Dawkins should come to grips with the history of the ideas Weikart relates” (196), when it’s clearly Marshall himself who is misusing Weikart’s research.  Marshall’s apparent hypocrisy, which is another form of dishonesty, is simply breathtaking.

 

30.  Marshall claims that Dawkins “interviews a Lutheran terrorist who shot an abortion doctor and his bodyguard.” (173) 

 

That’s simply false.  In reality, Dawkins interviewed a pastor connected to the terrorist.  This kind of sloppiness is found throughout the book and makes Marshall’s pedantic complaints about some of Dawkins’ alleged errors seem rather hypocritical, to say the least.

 

31.  Marshall makes it look like Sam Harris suggested that killing a human being might be ethically justifiable if the victim had low intelligence, poor language skills, or other cognitive deficits. (196) 

 

But if you check Marshall’s source, Harris was actually criticizing proposals suggested by others.  Marshall’s implication that the quote represented Harris’ own position is simply false.

 

32. Marshall claims, “Harris blames America’s high rates of abortion, teen pregnancy, and sexually transmitted disease on Christianity.” (204) 

 

However, what Harris actually says is that “Of course, correlational data of this sort do NOT resolve questions of causality….  Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, however, these statistics prove that atheism is compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that widespread belief in God does not ensure a society’s health.”  (Emphasis added.)

 

Marshall’s falsehood could hardly be more blatant.

 

33.  Marshall cites Kaiser Wilhelm II as one of the apparently atheistic Darwinists who espoused racist beliefs (195), but according to Wikipedia, Kaiser Wilhelm II was actually a Christian, so Marshall’s claim looks like another deliberate falsehood.

 

34.  Marshall claims that Weikart argues that the Holocaust was the result of eight decades of the corrosive action of Darwinism. (195)  That’s simply false.  Weikart explicitly states that, “It would be foolish to blame Darwinism for the Holocaust ….” (“From Darwin to Hitler;” p. 232)

 

35.  Marshall claims that “we have seen that the view that Christianity asks for ‘unjustified belief’ is itself unjustified!” (198)

 

In reality, of course, Marshall hasn’t shown that at all.  What about Mary’s perpetual virginity?  What about transubstantiation?  What about papal infallibility?  Marshall’s book provides no credible justification whatsoever for what looks like quite a bit of “unjustified belief.”

 

36.  In response to Harris’ comment, “I know of no society … that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs,” Marshall complains that “Harris is playing a shell game.  The point was supposed to be that religion is harmful….  Now he is admitting that the real problem is failing to live up to a particular moral virtue – honesty.” (198)

 

Marshall is basically accusing Harris of using a bait-and-switch argument, which is pretty amusing all by itself, given the number of bait-and-switches that Marshall himself resorts to.

 

But the real problem here is that Marshall is simply misrepresenting Harris’ argument.  The statement Marshall quotes comes at the end of a section titled “Are Atheists Evil?,” and the general theme of that section is that dogma of any sort – religious or political -- is dangerous.  And the specific paragraph that Marshall takes the quote from says: “Auschwitz, the Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia … testify to the dangers of political and racial dogmatism.  It is time that Christians … stop pretending that a rational rejection of your faith entails the blind embrace of atheism as a *dogma.*  One need not accept anything on insufficient evidence to find the virgin birth of Jesus to be a preposterous idea.  The problem with religion – as with Nazism, Stalinism, or any other totalitarian mythology – is the problem of dogma itself.  I know of no society in human history, etc. etc.”  In short, Harris didn’t change topics illegitimately at all, and the sentence Marshall quotes fits in perfectly with the overall theme that Harris was addressing.

 

If Marshall wants to criticize what Harris said in his book, that’s fine, but HE OUGHT TO READ THE DARN THING FIRST!

 

37.  Marshall says, “Dawkins tells us we must not ask questions about ‘purpose’ and ‘meaning.’” (215)  

 

That’s a pretty blatant falsehood too.  In reality, Dawkins discusses purpose at quite some length under the rubric “intentional stance” and says it’s quite plausible “that the intentional stance has survival value as a brain mechanism that speeds up decision-making in dangerous circumstances….”  (TGD, pp. 179-190)  Why would Dawkins say we shouldn’t ask questions about such an important mechanism?  Marshall’s claim doesn’t make any sense.

 

In fact, if you look at the page Marshall cites, you’ll see Dawkins himself posing what he obviously thinks are important questions about purpose.  Marshall seems to be just a flat out liar.

 

38.  Marshall says, “He [i.e., Dawkins] refers to the asking of such questions [i.e., about purpose and meaning] as “childish teleology.” (215)

 

That’s another falsehood.  The phrase “childish teleology” does appear on the page Marshall cites, so that’s an improvement right there over some of Marshall’s other fabricated citations; but even so, Dawkins is clearly using the phrase in a vastly different way from what Marshall says.  Dawkins does *not* use the words to refer to “the asking of such questions [i.e., about purpose and meaning],” rather he uses them to refer to the childish habit of naively attributing purpose to inanimate objects; e.g., “Pointy rocks are so animals could scratch on them when they get itchy.”  Marshall misrepresents even the simplest things right.  He simply can’t be trusted to tell the truth.

 

 

 

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

 

That’s the last of the obvious falsehoods, etc., for this section, though several more of Marshall’s whoppers are discussed in other sections, especially Section V, Weird Science.  But from just this section, we can see that there are numerous, significant falsehoods throughout Marshall’s book.  Marshall simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth. 

 

I actually knew about Marshall’s dishonesty before I read his book, because I had seen him in action in the Amazon forums for Michael Behe’s “The Edge of Evolution” and Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion.”  The following examples of Marshall’s dishonesty aren’t included in the 500+ problems I found in his book, but they’re still interesting for the insight they provide into Marshall’s integrity.  All of the following examples, like many of the above examples from his book, were specifically called to Marshall’s attention, but as far as I know, he has never corrected even a single one of any of them.  You can draw your own conclusions about Marshall’s integrity from that.

 

a. Marshall accused Behe-critic Sean Carroll of improperly presenting a description of the Huxley-Wilberforce debate as “historical fact.”  But in reality, Carroll did no such thing, rather he explicitly referred to the events as “purported.”  When that fact was pointed out to Marshall, he not only refused to acknowledge his original mistake, he actually repeated the same falsehood in a second comment.

 

b. Marshall also misrepresented one of Sean Carroll’s criticisms of Behe’s “Edge of Evolution” by falsely implying that a key argument about multiple mutations referred to simultaneous mutations instead.  Marshall repeated this falsehood as well.

 

c. Marshall was upset about the alleged -- emphasis on “alleged” -- retaliation against evolution-critic Richard Sternberg, but Marshall himself regularly retaliated against his critics by trying to get Amazon to censor unfavorable reviews and other comments.  (Unlike the Biblical David, David Marshall frequently chooses to run away rather than fight.)  Such hypocrisy may be considered another form of dishonesty.

 

d.  Marshall frequently engages in misleading “bait-and-switch” arguments, where he pretends to address one issue, but actually addresses a completely different issue instead, and then pretends that his discussion of the irrelevant issue has disposed of the original issue.  Marshall knows that such arguments are illegitimate, because he has criticized others for making them.  So Marshall’s own resort to such arguments seems to indicate deliberate dishonesty.  (There is a detailed discussion of Marshall’s bait-and-switch tactics in the comments following J. Leonard’s review of Marshall’s book at Amazon and in Section V, Weird Science, below.)

 

e.  In EOE, Behe said that the evolution of a certain kind of protein-protein binding was essentially impossible, because it required too many separate steps for gradual, evolutionary processes to accomplish.  But less than two months after EOE was released, biology student Abbie Smith posted a devastating comment about the existence of a fairly recently evolved protein-protein binding site in HIV, which showed not only that the evolution of such a complex system was possible in theory, but that it had actually already happened.  This was a major embarrassment for Behe, because he had actually used HIV himself as one of the major examples in his book.  Marshall found out about Smith’s post, but claimed that Behe had successfully defended his EOE claims against Smith’s challenges.  However, when challenged to provide a citation to Behe’s allegedly successful defense, Marshall failed to do so.  You can draw your own conclusions about Marshall’s honesty from that.

 

When an apparent lightweight like Marshall seems to lie through his teeth, it may not be cause for much concern; but when an organization like Harvest House Publishers lends its support to such rampant dishonesty, that seems quite a bit more disturbing; and when a noted Christian scholar like Dr. Paul Griffiths of the Duke Divinity School lends his support to such rampant dishonesty, that seems quite disturbing too.

 

 

SECTION II.  NAKED (AND PROBABLY FALSE) ASSERTIONS

 

The items listed in Section I seem to be pretty clear examples of Marshall’s dishonesty.  There are many other statements or arguments in Marshall’s book where he fails to provide citations or other evidence to establish the truth of his factual premises.  Since so many of Marshall’s other statements are known to be false, it seems a safe bet that many of his undocumented claims are also false. 

 

Given Marshall’s strenuous attempts in Chapter 1 to refute the “blind faith” meme, it’s surprising to see the number of naked assertions in his book.  That seems highly inconsistent, even if all of his naked assertions turn out to be true, which seems extremely unlikely.  Some of Marshall’s more noteworthy naked assertions are listed below.  I chose them because they seem to raise issues of both scholarship and integrity.  Marshall boasts about both the number and the quality of the citations in his book, but when challenged to document some of the following assertions, he angrily refused.  As far as I know, he has refused to provide any credible documentation for any of the following items, though in many cases he’s known about the requests for documentation for years.  That seems quite suspicious. 

 

Many of the items in this section are taken from Dr. Avalos’ long essay about Marshall’s claims about the Bible and slavery, and I think it’s appropriate to repeat Dr. Avalos’ conclusion here:

 

“Marshall repeatedly represents as facts what he does not know to be facts, and that is as deep an indictment of intellectual integrity as one can find.  Having accused some New Atheists of displaying “uncritical naiveté,” Marshall shows himself to be just another apologist who fails to live up to the standards he demands of others.”

 

I agree.  On far too many occasions, Marshall seems to be simply making his “facts” up out of thin air, with little or no regard for whether they’re true or not.  And of course, it’s hard to find citations for stuff you just make up out of thin air.  Perhaps that’s why Marshall doesn’t provide citations for the statements listed below.

 

 

1.  Marshall claims that Jesus gave Thomas and the other disciples enough evidence that they were willing to die for him. (17) 

 

2.  Marshall claims that “even skeptical historians” admit that the New Testament’s miracle stories show “strong evidence of historicity.”  (18) 

 

3. Marshall quotes Dawkins’ alleged, nonsensical definition of faith, “believing what you know isn’t true” (24), and spends several pages trying to refute it; but, surprisingly, Marshall provides no citation for the alleged quote.  That quote seems to be a pretty important part of the book, but it appears that Marshall just made it up out of thin air.

 

4.  Marshall says, “There’s no way to prove our minds work – this is often forgotten by people who uncritically praise the scientific method.”  (27)  Marshall provides no clue as to who those people are, or even that they exist at all, much less what their specific positions on religious faith are.  So why does Marshall bring them up at all?  What is their relevance to the God-debate?  It seems to be just a sleazy cheap shot at people who may know a lot more about science than Marshall ever will.

 

5.  Marshall says skeptics are arbitrary and authoritarian in applying teleology. (27)  Well, that may be, but since Marshall cites no examples, I guess we’ll just have to take it on blind faith.  Oh, wait, I thought we weren’t supposed to do that!  Marshall seems very, very confused.

 

6.  Marshall says, “The problem is that hubris about the ‘scientific method’ often masks an almost childish naivete about what constitutes a good argument in nonscientific fields.”  (28) Well, that may be, but Marshall cites no specific examples, and I think it would be childishly naïve to just accept his statement on blind faith.  

 

Also, notice that Marshall put “scientific method” in scare quotes.  What possible explanation could there be for that, other than to pander to evolution-deniers?

 

7.  Marshall says, “Those who make wild claims about the scientific method often base their arguments not on good human evidence (which they discount), but rumor, wild guesses, and extrapolations that would embarrass a shaman.”  (30)  Well, that may be, but Marshall cites no specific examples, and he’s been caught in some pretty flagrant falsehoods on many other occasions, so I’m not inclined to just accept his statement on blind faith.  And in any case, before Marshall criticizes others for making wild extrapolations, he ought to make sure he’s not making any himself.  Oops, too late!  Check out in Section VI how Marshall uses the lovers’ quarrels he occasionally overheard in a single neighborhood in a single college town in a single country as the basis for an extrapolation covering every neighborhood in every town in every country in Europe. (205) Now that’s an extrapolation!

 

8.  Marshall continues, implying that Marxism-Leninism involved “canyon-spanning leaps of unwarranted belief.” (30) Marshall’s fervent anti-Communism probably sounds appealing to what probably is a mostly Christian readership, but more skeptical readers –including skeptical Christians like myself – might prefer to see some sort of evidence that provides at least some minimal justification for Marshall’s argument.  Unfortunately, Marshall provides neither rational argument nor supporting citations.  Perhaps he’s just basing his argument on blind faith.

 

9 - 15.  Marshall implies that somebody named “Freud,” was part of “an unending succession of pseudo-scientific cults, of popular hoaxes and swindles, of wild guesses that have struck the cognosphere like the 24-hour bug.” (30)  Marshall’s failure to provide even so much as a citation for such serious accusations seems pretty contemptible.  Marshall was in such a hurry to complete this drive-by character assassination, he didn’t even provide the poor victim’s first name!

 

Of course I know who Marshall is referring to in this case.  But it’s still worth making the complaint, to highlight how utterly shallow, vague, and poorly documented Marshall’s arguments can be.

 

Marshall’s drive-by shooting included six other victims: “Kinsey,” “Mead,” “Ayn Rand” (at least we have this poor victim’s full name!), “Haeckel,” “Galton,” and “Skinner.”  Marshall’s drive-by shootings may be red meat for Christian readers, but there’s little or no fiber there.  Hardly a balanced diet. 

 

16. Marshall implies that new atheists accuse Christians of believing it a “virtue not to understand” (37), but he provides no citation to justify his argument.

 

17.  Marshall cites the case of Richard Sternberg to “document” scientists’ alleged hostility toward religion.  Marshall claims that Sternberg was “shunned, lied about, and kept from doing research at the Smithsonian Institute,” after he authorized publishing an article advocating intelligent design in a professional journal (42); but Marshall provides not even a single scrap of credible, corroborating evidence showing that any of those things actually occurred, much less that any of it was inappropriate.  If Sternberg was in fact guilty of abusing his position to promote his religious beliefs, then why shouldn’t he suffer the consequences for that misconduct?

 

18 – 28.  Marshall lists Marx, Engels, Comte, Freud, Haeckel, Nietzsche, Sartre, Skinner, Wells, Rorty, and Said as being  “virulent post-Christian thinkers,” and then claims that most of their followers were “brights.” (43)  Naturally, Marshall fails to provide even a scrap of credible supporting evidence for those claims.

 

This seems to be one of several examples of Marshall just sprinting through a laundry list of hot button topics without making much, or even any, effort to justify his arguments.  It’s looks like he’s just listing hot button topics for the sole purpose of pandering to Christian conservatives.  And it seems pretty contemptible.

 

29 – 39.  Marshall continues, claiming that “quite a few of these folk threaten to go down in history as quacks.” (43)  Not only are Marshall’s claims here impossibly vague – who, exactly, is he talking about, and how serious is the threat? –  but once again he fails to provide even a scrap of credible supporting evidence for them.  It kind of makes one wonder if Marshall’s claims about the existence of God are equally devoid of credible supporting evidence.

 

40.  Discussing common descent, Marshall claims that “a surprising number of fossils remain missing.” (57)  I suggest that the real surprise here is the number of missing citations, not the number of missing fossils.

 

Also, I can’t help but wonder what expertise in paleontology Marshall has that makes him qualified to make this claim.  I suspect that Marshall is as lacking in expertise as he is in citations.  Making bold claims about something that is probably outside the scope of his expertise indicates a reckless disregard for the truth that casts a shadow over everything he says.  A little humility would go a long way in avoiding some of the undisciplined extravagances in Marshall’s rhetoric.

 

41.  Returning to the myth of the Sternberg martyrdom, Marshall claims that Sternberg published Meyer’s controversial article “after vetting it with three other biologists.” (64)  Marshall cites no credible evidence to corroborate this.  He appears to have swallowed an ID myth, hook, line, and seaweed.

 

42.  Marshall claims that Sternberg’s colleagues “launched a campaign to smear and … get rid of [him].”  Marshall implies, of course, that those actions were inappropriate, but what’s his justification for that conclusion?  Anti-evo bias?  Blind faith? 

 

43.  Marshall also claims that Sternberg was required to submit extra paperwork.  Marshall implies, of course, that that was inappropriate, but without any credible evidence, what’s his justification?  Anti-evo bias?  Blind faith? 

 

44.  Complaining about mainstream science’s rejection of intelligent design, Marshall says that science shouldn’t be about coming to orthodox conclusions, but about “openness to evidence” (66), implying here that scientists – or perhaps, just evos -- as a group, are more devoted to “orthodox” conclusions than they are to evidence.  Marshall’s cheap shot innuendo, of course, is not backed up by any credible evidence whatsoever.

 

45.  Marshall piously proclaims that “it’s too glib to glance at the stars and declare the [origin-of-life] problem solved.” (68)  Marshall implies here that Dawkins or some other atheist has actually said that.  Naturally, Marshall provides no citation.  In short, it looks like just another cheap shot against mainstream science.

 

46.  Marshall indicates that there’s nothing really wrong with using god-of-the-gaps arguments in science (68), but he doesn’t provide a single example of god-of-the-gaps arguments being used successfully in science.  Not even one!

 

47.  Marshall says that “Both sides discredit themselves … by forcing all science into a theological cage that depends on what great Christians thousands of years ago already saw as a naïve reading of Genesis .…” (76-77)  Marshall provide no citations showing that even a single New Atheist “forces all science into a theological cage….”

 

48.  Marshall claims that “At its best social science [such as psychology and sociology] sketches a recognizable outline of man, missing perhaps a few appendages.” (79)  How could Marshall possibly know that?  Does he have any real expertise in, say, psychology?  If not, then what is the foundation for his statement?  Blind faith?  Dr. Avalos pointed out in his devastating critique of Marshall’s discussion of slavery that Marshall seemed to be making bold proclamations about things he had no knowledge of.  Claiming that something is true when one has no credible basis for making that claim manifests an utterly reckless disregard for the truth, and that’s a major indictment of Marshall’s scholarly integrity.  Over and over again, Marshall isn’t telling the truth, rather he’s merely guessing.  That kind of behavior in someone claiming to be a scholar is simply contemptible, and for scholars like Dr. Paul Griffiths from the Duke Divinity School to go along with Marshall’s dishonesty seems equally contemptible. 

 

49.  Marshall also claims that “… even in describing human nature, the hindsight of social science often proves muddier than the foresight of Michelangelo’s teachers, such as Paul and Augustine.” (79)  Marshall cites no evidence that either Paul or Augustine were Michelangelo’s teachers.

 

50.  Marshall says, “The problem with memetics is not just that … as Phillip E. Johnson argued, if natural origin discredits religious ideas, it undermines antireligious ones, too….”  (87)  Here is another unsubstantiated hit-and-run attack about naturalistic theories of origins allegedly being self-refuting. 

 

51.  Marshall says the Gospels “portray a person who convinces those with the most acute insight into human nature that … no one could have made up the man described.” (117)  I wonder what makes Marshall qualified to make such a judgment. 

 

Also, Marshall’s argument appears to be based on purely personal opinion, not objective criteria.

 

Also, it’s interesting to note that many Muslim scholars have said very similar things about the Prophet Mohammed and/or the Koran.  I wonder if Marshall would accept that as proving that the Koran is indeed the Word of God.

 

52.  Marshall compares the Gospels to reports about the famous Huxley-Wilberforce debate about evolution, claiming that those reports “generally get the gist of Huxley’s response to the ‘Your grandfather was an ape’ comment roughly correct, even though written 40 years later.” (119)  Marshall provides no citation to the alleged reports and no description of the allegedly correct “gist.”  In short, there’s no reason to believe his comparison is anything but a complete fantasy.  (Some historians think Huxley’s famous retort to Bishop Wilberforce was indeed a largely imaginary event, so perhaps the Gospels are more similar to the reports of the H-W debate than Marshall would care to admit!)

 

53.  Discussing the Indian practice of sati, Marshall says that Christian missionaries petitioned the British government to protect widows, but that “the ‘brights’ of the British empire had better things to do.” (139)  Marshall’s alleged source for this factual statement does not actually support what Marshall says.  It looks like Marshall just made it up out of thin air.

 

54.  Discussing the Bible’s role in the abolition of slavery, Marshall claims that it helped end slavery twice in Europe, but that “Not many people know about the first abolition movement.” (145)  Well, perhaps the reason they don’t know about it is because it never happened, at least not on the scale Marshall implies.  Marshall provides no statistics or other documentation for his sweeping claim, and much of his “abolition movement” appears to be largely imaginary, as indicated by the mostly undocumented claims listed below.

 

55.  Marshall says, “Already by the fourth century, an upper class convert set 3000 slaves free.” (145)  I wonder if Marshall deliberately left out the name of this “upper class convert” in order to help conceal the likely fictional nature of the story.

 

56.  Marshall says, “Early in the seventh century, the monk Aidan took donations from the rich to buy slaves, liberate them, and given them an education.” (145)  

 

57.  Marshall says, “Queen Balthild (wife of Clovis II) worked to … stop the slave trade.” (145)  

 

58.  Marshall says, “By the eleventh century, ‘no slaves to speak of’ remained in entire regions of Western Europe, and soon after, in England.” (145)  Here Marshall cites Thomas, a secondary source, but Thomas gives no source for his statement.  So why did Marshall believe Thomas?  Perhaps Marshall is relying here on the same sort of “uncritical naivité” (sic) that he (probably falsely) accused Harris of. (144)  In any case, Avalos claims that Jean Bodin has a very different explanation for any decrease in slavery in France, namely, economic necessity and demographic changes.  I wonder why Marshall didn’t mention that.

 

59.  Marshall says, “In 1639, Pope Urban VIII ‘condemned slavery absolutely.’” (146)  Marshall provides no primary sources for this claim, which is almost certainly false.  The Pope did issue a document titled Commissum Nobis in 1639, but that document only addresses slavery in the New World.  Furthermore, what Marshall conveniently leaves out is that Pope Urban VIII himself had slaves.  So much for condemning slavery “absolutely.” 

 

60.  Marshall says, “The abolitionists saw humanity as equal because they called a Jewish carpenter ‘Lord’—not because abolition was ‘obvious.’” (146)  Marshall cites no evidence at all for his proposal.  It’s just empty bombast.

 

A fundamental problem in Marshall’s argument is that he sees what he wants to see and simply disregards the rest.  There were some Christians who opposed slavery.  Good for them.  But the fact remains that the Bible had been around for thousands of years before abolition triumphed in any real way, and Marshall provides no real explanation for that whatsoever, just as he provides no real explanation for why it took 1500 years for Christians to “invent science,” as Marshall also alleges, and with just as little justification. 

 

61.  Criticizing Dawkins’ claim that a shifting Zeitgeist carries humanity ever upwards, Marshall says that Wesley described Africans as nice, hardworking, talented folks back in 1774, and then adds, “The modern ‘vanguard’ is now talking not just about late-term abortions, but infanticide and euthanasia. ‘Zeitgeists’ do shift, but sometimes the wave is more destructive than any tsunami.” (147)  Marshall needs to be more careful in deciding who’s in what vanguard.  As Avalos points out, Wesley was hundreds or thousands of years behind many non-Christians who said nice things about Africans too, and infanticide wasn’t invented by 21^st century commentators.  (See 1 Samuel 15:1-3.)

 

62.  Marshall says, “It took a powerful spiritual force to free the slaves. Few serious historians (and I’ve head the subject discussed by a roomful of very serious historians within minutes of Dawkins’s office) deny that the force was the gospel and those who put it into practice.” (147-148)  As Avalos points out, however, “Marshall neither names these historians, nor does he have the competence to evaluate whether these historians are correct or not.” 

 

63.  Marshall claims, “Christianity invented the university.” (149)  That naked assertion seems quite debatable.  Google “Al-Azhar University,” “University of Constantinople,” and “University of Al Karaouine” to see three examples of universities that predate all of the universities mentioned by Marshall.  As J. Blilie comments, “It doesn’t seem as if the Arabs were waiting around for Christianity to ‘invent the university.’”

 

64.  Marshall asks, “Why did Poland, the most Christian country in Europe, throw off communism first,” (151) but he fails to provide any evidence that Poland: 1) is the most Christian country in Europe, and 2) threw off communism first.

 

65.  Discussing torture, Marshall says that “Making someone feel pain until he does what you want is what Daniel Dennett calls a ‘good trick’ ….” (159)  Another good trick is making accusations without providing any supporting citations.

 

66. Marshall claims that Hitler hated Christianity. (168)  If Hitler actually said that, he apparently said it directly to Marshall, since there’s no reference to any other source.

 

67.  Marshall claims that “[communists] had killed 100 million innocent people.” (183)  It would have been nice for Marshall to document that claim.  But he doesn’t.  Hmm.  Perhaps he just made it up out of thin air.

 

68.  Marshall claims that “Dawkins is more broad-minded; he thinks children have a right to be indoctrinated into thinking [all religions are] evil, no matter what their parents say.” (185)  No citation for that either.

 

69.  Marshall cites Kaiser Wilhelm II as one of the apparently atheistic Darwinists who espoused racist beliefs (195), but as reported in Section I, Wikipedia indicates that Kaiser Wilhelm II was actually a Christian, not an atheist.  And that’s not necessarily the end of Marshall’s dishonesty here.  Marshall also provides no justification whatsoever for believing that KWII was either a Darwinist or a racist.

 

70.  Marshall says, “Margaret Mead wrote about ‘love under the palms’ in Samoa, in one of the most successful acts of scientific frauds … of the twentieth century. (205)  Naturally Marshall cites no evidence to justify his attack.  It kind of makes one wonder who the real fraud is.    

 

71.  Marshall says, “The New Atheism reveals its simplistic grasp on reality in many ways.  First, the most cocky atheists often fail to recognize the limits of science.” (209)  Well, perhaps, but cocky theists often fail to provide citations to document their claims.

 

72.  Marshall also complains that the new atheists’ theories “leave too many facts out.” (209)  Well, perhaps, but Marshall leaves too many citations out.

 

73.  Marshall says, they refuse to ask certain obviously important questions. (209)  Well, perhaps, but Marshall refuses to provide certain obviously important citations. 

 

74.  Marshall claims that quantum irregularities, the big bang, and anthropic coincidences, mark a God-shaped vacuum around the field of science, “just about where Christian theology has generally marked it.” (210) 

 

What ignorant twaddle.  It looks like one of those ignorance-based God-of-the-gaps arguments that Marshall says he isn’t making. (68)  Perhaps Marshall thinks his ignorance is all the justification he needs.

 

75.  There are about 20 questions in the section titled “Random Acts of Inquiry.” (211-214)  One of the questions was a bit interesting.  “How do atheists know God can’t [raise Jesus bodily from the dead]?” (213)  What’s interesting is that Marshall provides no citations to any atheist who actually said that. 

 

76.  Marshall calls anthropic coincidences a “scientific clue to divine activity.” (214)  Marshall seems to be trying to turn ignorance into evidence again.

 

77 - 85.  Marshall claims that New Atheists play a game of “let’s pretend” by pretending that:  a) “Bible-thumpers didn’t … paint the Sistine Chapel ….”; b) “Stalin was the only unpleasant Marxist;” c) “the origin of life has been solved;” and d-i) “Solomon, Plato, Lao Zi, Augustine, Pascal, and Burke have nothing to teach us now that we have Marc Hauser and Peter Singer.” (214) 

 

Nine separate accusations, all of them highly dubious, and zero supporting citations.  So who’s really playing “let’s pretend”?

 

86.  “‘Brights’ cheerfully midwifed the birth of every modern form of barbarism….  Slave ships were a technological advance.” (219)  Once again, where’s the citation to document that claim?

 

 

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

 

For someone who argues so strenuously that believers have sufficient evidence to justify their beliefs, Marshall sure seems reluctant to cite the evidence for a lot of his claims.  I find that very interesting.

 

 

SECTION III.  APPARENT PLAGIARISM

 

Marshall pompously proclaims himself to be a scholar, but scholars are supposed to give credit when they use the work of other scholars.  It seems pretty clear that Marshall failed to do that on at least two occasions.

 

1. A key part of Marshall’s discussion of the evolution of the eye (74) appears to be substantially lifted from Phillip Johnson’s “Darwin on Trial,” p. 34.  Marshall must have known about Johnson’s argument, so his failure to provide any attribution at all to Johnson’s work here looks highly suspicious.

 

Johnson was responding to Dawkins’ response to the common creationist challenge, “what good is half an eye?”  Dawkins’ response basically was that 5% of an eye is good for 5% vision, which is better than 4% vision, which is better than 3% vision, etc., thus indicating a gradual pathway for evolutionary development.  Johnson’s counter was that 5% of an eye is not necessarily the same thing as 5% of normal vision, and that there might be some minimum number of parts required for there to be any vision at all, thus indicating a possible, and possibly unbridgeable, gap between 0% vision and 1% vision which could not be crossed by gradual, evolutionary processes. 

 

That’s basically the same argument that Marshall made, except that Marshall is apparently such a bungler that he couldn’t even copy Johnson’s simple argument competently.  Marshall changed some of the words that Johnson used – perhaps hoping thereby to conceal his apparent plagiarism – and in the process completely mangled the obvious logic of Johnson’s objection. (Details in Section V, Weird Science.)

 

2. Marshall mocks Darwinists like philosopher Daniel Dennett, who “climbs the highest peak of social science and victoriously raises the Darwinian flag, trying valiantly to ignore a herd of theologians sipping lattes in glacial caves on the summit.” (92)  Marshall apparently lifted that bit of mockery from physicist Robert Jastrow’s “God and the Astronomer,” pp. 106-7.  Marshall’s failure to credit Jastrow also looks suspicious.

 

 

SECTION IV.  CONVENIENT OMISSIONS

 

Dishonesty comes in many forms.  Leaving facts out can be just as misleading as presenting false information.  As indicated below, many of Marshall’s arguments are indeed highly misleading, precisely because he leaves out so many important facts.

 

1.  Dawkins allegedly defines “faith” as meaning “in the teeth of evidence and reason.”  Marshall vigorously disputes that definition.  “I’ve done the research,” he proudly proclaims, and “For 2000 years Christians have defined faith as inseparable from reason and evidence.” (21-22)

 

Marshall’s so-called “research” apparently didn’t include even the minimum amount required to verify the accuracy of his Dawkins citation.  If you check Marshall’s footnotes, not only does he cite the wrong author and the wrong book – instead of citing Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” Marshall actually cites J.P. Moreland’s “Love Your God …” –  but even ignoring those blunders, he still doesn’t get the citation right.  His use of this quotation is not only misleading, it’s downright false, as discussed in Section I. 

 

The additional point I want to make here is that Marshall’s so-called “research” was deficient in another way.  Regardless of how Dawkins does or doesn’t define “faith,” the fact is, as J. Blilie points out, that some mainstream dictionaries, both secular and Christian, define faith very much in accord with the way that Marshall finds so objectionable.  (Blilie’s posts quote the actual definitions, so I won’t repeat them here.)

 

It’s also quite easy to find very prominent Christian sources that endorse exactly the kind of in- the-teeth-of-the-evidence faith that Marshall finds so objectionable.  To take just one example, a thoroughly modern biology textbook, Biology for Christian Schools, publicly defended by Christian, anti-evolution hero Michael Behe, says:

 

“If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.”

 

and

 

“Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible.”

 

Gee, that sounds exactly like the kind of in- the-teeth-of-the-evidence faith that Marshall finds so objectionable, but it doesn’t come from Dawkins, rather it comes from a very modern, widely used, Christian textbook.  And one of the people promoting that textbook is none other than Michael Behe, who seems to be one of Marshall’s personal heroes!  Several other nationally prominent creationists have made similar claims.  It seems quite astonishing that Marshall left all that out.

 

As for “great Christian thinkers across the centuries,” here’s Martin Luther, arguably one of the most influential Protestant theologians in history:  “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has.”  And: “Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.”  And: “Reason should be destroyed in all Christians.”

 

If Marshall thinks there’s a way to explain away all that seemingly problematic evidence, he’s free to present his argument.  But for him to simply pretend that such evidence doesn’t exist seems manifestly dishonest.

 

2.  Marshall says, “[God] is not a lap dog who comes when called.” (31)  Marshall seems to be saying here that God does not necessarily produce evidence like miracles on demand, which is strange, because the Bible seems to say the exact opposite.  Matthew 21:21 says that Jesus said, “If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”  And Mark 11:24 says that Jesus said, “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”  Those Gospel verses clearly seem to contradict Marshall’s statement.  I wonder why Marshall doesn’t mention them.

 

3.  In a section titled “Hostility Toward Religion” (42), Marshall cites Harris’ statement that “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”  By presenting the quote out of context, Marshall makes it appear more objectionable to a Christian audience, but Harris’ statement was actually made in reference to people who advocate violence, presumably people like Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki.  In that context, Harris’ comment would undoubtedly be quite acceptable to many Christians, probably including the Christian who said “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me.” (For the identity of that Christian, please see Luke 19:27.)  Taking quotes out of context is highly objectionable all by itself.  Marshall’s failure to disclose information indicating that Harris’ statement is arguably, entirely consistent with traditional Christian thought is even more objectionable.

 

4.  Marshall dredges up the Sternberg martyrdom story to support his attack on mainstream science.  Marshall claims the article that Sternberg approved for publication questioned evolution’s ability to explain the Cambrian Explosion. (64)  Well, yeah, the paper did do that, but what Marshall conveniently leaves out is that the article then launched into a bizarre argument advocating intelligent design.  That’s what the real problem was, not the article’s allegedly somewhat amateurish but otherwise basically routine discussion of the Cambrian Explosion.  Marshall’s failure to disclose what actually made the paper so objectionable gives a highly misleading view of what actually happened.  I wonder if Marshall intended to be deliberately misleading here.

 

5.  Marshall also describes the Cambrian Explosion as “the sudden appearance of many distinct animals in the fossil record about 570 million years ago.” (64)  He conveniently leaves out the fact that the Cambrian Explosion actually lasted millions of years.  That’s not really “sudden.”

 

6.  Marshall claims that one of the dirty tactics used against poor little Sternberg was that those mean ole evos took away his keys. (64)  Marshall conveniently leaves out any discussion about whether other employees also had to give up their keys, because the office was undergoing renovations.  This information was readily available.  Why did Marshall fail to disclose it? 

 

7.  Complaining about mainstream science’s rejection of intelligent design, Marshall says that science shouldn’t be about coming to orthodox conclusions, but about “openness to evidence” (66), implying that scientists – or perhaps, just evos -- as a group, care more about “orthodox” conclusions than they do about evidence.  Marshall does not back up his cheap shot innuendo with any credible evidence, of course, perhaps because it seems to be the ID-proponents themselves who are devoted to orthodoxy rather than evidence.  William Dembski, for example, proclaimed he would never change his mind, no matter what the evidence.  Michael Behe publicly supported a high school science textbook that taught that students should simply follow the Bible and ignore contrary evidence.  Ken Ham, Henry Morris, and Kurt Wise, all of whom are far more prominent than Marshall will ever be, and all of whom support various ID proposals have made similar statements.  Marshall conveniently leaves that part out.

 

8.  Attacking mainstream scientific research into the origin of life, Marshall quotes chemist William Bonner admitting that he had “spent 25 years looking for terrestrial mechanisms for homochirality and … didn’t find any supporting evidence.” (68)  Wow, pretty damning, huh.  Well, not really.  Notice that the comment is specifically about *terrestrial* mechanisms.  What Marshall conveniently leaves out is that Bonner then went on to recommend research into outer space.  In short, Marshall’s own source advises where significant evidence about homochirality might be – and actually has been -- found, but Marshall conveniently fails to disclose that.

 

9.  Marshall blasts presumed atheists for posting “No Bleevurz Aloud” signs on the doorpost of “Le Club Scientifique” (77); but what Marshall conveniently leaves out is that it’s not just atheists complaining about ID-proponents not doing science.  It’s devout Christians too, like Ken Miller and some of the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller case.  Why didn’t Marshall disclose any of that?

 

And if it’s objectionable for atheists to post such signs, then why does Marshall not voice any objection to theists who post equivalent signs?  In fact, the theists’ signs are arguably much worse than the atheists’ alleged (and possibly entirely imaginary) signs.  Marshall doesn’t cite any university that has an explicit policy excluding theists from its science department, but there are some Christian schools that do have policies explicitly excluding atheists.  Where is Marshall’s outraged objection to that?

 

10.  In the section titled “Jesus Frees Slaves,” (144-148) Marshall implies that the Bible played the key role in abolitionist movements in medieval Europe.  Marshall cites Thomas here, but fails to disclose that Thomas actually says that there were “many causes for the fall of the ancient institution,” and indicates that specifically religious reasons seemed to be rather far down the list in terms of impact.  That’s a huge omission.

 

11.  Marshall says, “Evangelical Christians led the movement against slavery in England and America, and England led the world.” (146)  Bzzzt!  Wrong.  As Avalos points out, “In 1791, Haiti became the first country where slaves successfully overthrew their slavemasters (Christian slavemasters in this case), and founded a new nation. Those slaves were heavily influenced by Voodoo and other African traditions rather than just Christianity.”

 

Frederick Douglass, the great African-American abolitionist, said:  “Until Haiti struck for freedom, the conscience of the Christian world slept profoundly over slavery.... Until she [Haiti] spoke no Christian nation had given the world an organized effort to abolish slavery.”  It’s funny that Marshall left that part out.

 

12.  Marshall says, “Wesley, founder of Methodism, passionately opposed slavery from early on.” (147)  Well, good for Wesley, but Wesley was not necessarily representative of Methodism in general.  Avalos quotes Lester B. Scherer, who notes that by 1820: “[T]he majority of Methodists North and South agreed that questioning slaveholders’ status in the churches or their property rights was not the business of a religious body.”  I wonder why Marshall left that out.

 

 

SECTION V.  WEIRD SCIENCE

 

Let me be blunt.  Many of Marshall’s science-based arguments are simply stupid or even downright false.  It’s not clear why Marshall tries to address so many specifically scientific issues, since many, if not all, of those issues seem to be largely irrelevant to his point about the rationality of religious faith.  Perhaps Marshall is simply pandering to those readers who still deny evolution.  But in pandering to such fools, Marshall makes a pretty big fool of himself as well.

 

This section covers most of the specifically science-based arguments from Chapter Four.  That chapter is probably the dumbest chapter in the whole book, and that’s saying something, because there are some pretty strong contenders.

 

As the philosopher Harry Callahan once said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.”  Marshall would have been well advised to have heeded Dirty Harry’s sage advice.

 

1 - 6. Dawkins implied that Darwin had anticipated and disposed of every subsequent difficulty for his theory.  Marshall responds by implying that Darwin hadn’t anticipated the role that mutations play in the modern theory of evolution. (62)

a. Marshall regularly fails to use terms and concepts in his rebuttals that accurately track the terms and concepts that Dawkins uses.  Perhaps he simply doesn’t know any better.  But science often requires a high degree of precision, and here is where Marshall’s terminological sloppiness causes some serious problems.  First, the specific focus of Dawkins’ claim was “answering objections,” but the focus of Marshall’s response was “anticipating the role of mutations.”  Marshall provides nothing of any substance whatsoever showing any relevant connection between those two topics, so right from the start, Marshall has a serious problem with relevance.

 

NOTE:  Marshall has the bad habit of resorting to logic-chopping evasions, so I want to highlight the word “relevant” in my criticism.  No doubt, mutations are relevant to evolution, but Marshall doesn’t show any connection that’s relevant to his argument.  In short, Marshall doesn’t refute anything that Dawkins says, rather he simply changes the topic and pretends that that’s sufficient.  In reality, of course, it isn’t.

 

b.  Another obvious problem is the fact that Darwin repeatedly used the word “modification.”  Mutations and modifications both imply change, and there doesn’t seem to be any reason – and, God knows, Marshall sure doesn’t provide any -- to believe that mutations are necessarily outside the scope of the modifications that Darwin discusses.  So a key piece of Marshall’s argument appears to be missing.

 

c.  In any case, whatever Darwin meant by “modification,” the term “mutations” today generally refers to changes in DNA, i.e., genetic changes.  So despite the sloppiness of Marshall’s poorly written complaint, it seems safe to at least hazard the guess that he thinks that genetics is a problem for Darwinian evolution.  But there’s reason to suspect that Marshall is wrong about that.  Some of the most prestigious science organizations, journals, and societies in the world that deal with genetics, including the National Academy of Sciences, the Genetics Society of America, and the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics have publicly and strongly endorsed evolution. So where exactly is Marshall’s mysterious, poorly specified genetics problem?  

 

d.  And why doesn’t Marshall disclose those strong endorsements of evolution from those prestigious organizations?  Marshall himself apparently approves of citing experts when it comes to religious issues.  Why doesn’t he do that in this case?  Or does Marshall approve of citing experts only when they support Marshall?

 

e.  Despite Marshall’s hopelessly vague argument, we can still examine its general form, which essentially seems to be that: (i) if a scientist formulates a bold hypothesis, and (ii) if important, new evidence relevant to the hypothesis is subsequently discovered, then (iii) the new evidence will, of necessity, undermine the hypothesis.  No further comment is needed here. The inanity of Marshall’s argument is obvious.  Whether subsequently discovered evidence will confirm or falsify an earlier hypothesis cannot logically be determined simply by looking at a calendar.  Marshall’s apparent attempt to do just that is simply bizarre.

 

f.  Not only is Marshall’s argument utterly inane just standing on its own, it also seems to be inconsistent with another of his arguments.  Marshall mocks Darwinists like philosopher Daniel Dennett, who “climbs the highest peak of social science and victoriously raises the Darwinian flag, trying valiantly to ignore a herd of theologians sipping lattes in glacial caves on the summit.” (92)  Marshall’s mockery is interesting here, because it indicates that Marshall apparently accepts the possibility that theologians can make bold predictions that are confirmed as accurate by subsequently discovered evidence.  So why does Marshall apparently assume that scientists’ bold predictions can never be confirmed as accurate?  The apparent inconsistency there makes it look like Marshall has one set of standards for predictions by theologians, and a completely different set of standards for predictions by scientists.  Isn’t that curious!

 

7. Marshall falsely accuses Dawkins’ of being inconsistent in claiming that the hunt for irreducible complexity (IC) is both scientifically legitimate and scientifically illegitimate. (63) 

 

Marshall’s false accusation is discussed in Section I, but a further point about it needs to be made here.  Dawkins’ argument relates to a basic concept in logic called a “false dichotomy.”  Applying the concept correctly, Dawkins pointed out that even if the existence of IC systems successfully falsified evolution, that would still not logically establish the validity of ID.  In other words, ID-proponents cannot prove that ID is valid merely by throwing mud at evolution, rather they must produce some sort of meaningful, positive evidence supporting ID.  Marshall’s failure to grasp such an obvious, basic concept is a testament not only to his lack of critical thinking skills, but also to his lack of an adequate background in some of the topics in which he has so foolishly immersed himself.

 

The false dichotomy issue is regularly discussed in popular books on the dispute between evolution and creationism, and was also discussed in three of the most significant legal cases on the issue: McLean v. Arkansas, Edwards v. Aguillard, and the fairly recent Kitzmiller v. Dover.  The Kitzmiller case was so prominent that journalists from around the world followed it, and there is even what appears to be a covert reference to it in Marshall’s book.  So how is it possible for Marshall to have remained ignorant of the false dichotomy issue?

 

It’s really difficult to decide which is worse, Marshall’s dishonesty about Dawkins’ very sensible argument, or Marshall’s ignorance about such an important, widely discussed, and just flat out obvious logical concept.

 

8. Discussing the origin of life (OOL), Dawkins claims that, in his opinion, one in a billion is a really pessimistic estimate of the odds of life arising spontaneously on any given planet, he does a back-of-the-envelope estimate suggesting that there are a billion billion planets in the universe, and then he concludes: “Even accepting the most pessimistic estimate of the probability that life might spontaneously originate, this statistical argument completely demolishes any suggestion that we should postulate design to fill the gap.”  Marshall responds, “He [i.e., Dawkins] calls this ‘the most pessimistic estimate’ …,” and implies that Dawkins is being dishonest, because other estimates are even more pessimistic. (66)

 

(Marshall makes the accusation of dishonesty quite explicit in some of his Amazon posts, which, even if correct, is still pretty amusing, given Marshall’s own, much more obvious, and much more numerous falsehoods as listed in Section I.)

 

Marshall is basically arguing that Dawkins meant that his estimate was “the most pessimistic estimate ever given on the subject.”  I want to be fair to Marshall.  There is at least some possibility that Dawkins did mean exactly that.  However, unfortunately for Marshall, it is also possible that Dawkins meant something else entirely, and the evidence supporting Marshall’s interpretation is really, really weak. 

 

First and foremost, Dawkins never explicitly made the specific statement that Marshall is so outraged about.  Marshall’s outrage is not actually directed against Dawkins’ own words, rather it’s directed against Marshall’s interpretation of Dawkins’ words, and that makes his accusation much more problematic, because it raises the very distinct possibility that Marshall’s outrage is largely, if not entirely, contrived. 

 

Problem number two is that in order for Marshall to come up with his interpretation, he had to ignore the fact that:  (i) As Dawkins himself explains, the origin-of-life (OOL) issue is a very speculative field; (ii) OOL probability estimates involve a presumably one-time event, and anyone who knows anything about statistics, presumably including Dawkins, knows that estimating probabilities for one-time events are fraught with uncertainty; (iii) OOL deals primarily with chemistry, a field in which Dawkins explicitly denies having any particular expertise;  and (iv) Dawkins’ own estimate of the number of planets in the universe is conspicuously casual.  Given those four factors, it would be absolutely astonishing for Dawkins to proclaim that his own, non-expert estimate is the single most pessimistic OOL estimate ever calculated. Just the first three factors, by themselves, would make it virtually impossible for Dawkins to have done any realistic calculation; the first factor implies that even attempting such a calculation is largely a waste of time; and the conspicuously casual estimate that Dawkins does for just one variable, the number of planets in the universe, indicates that Dawkins is certainly not straining for precision.  Marshall conveniently omits all of that. 

 

So, given the background of Dawkins’ statement and given the fact that he never explicitly claims that his own estimate is the most pessimistic estimate ever, it seems enormously more likely than not that Dawkins never meant to imply what Marshall accused him of.  I understood Dawkins to be making the very reasonable -- indeed, virtually indisputable -- point that the highly speculative nature of the starting assumptions behind OOL estimates makes even the most pessimistic OOL estimate, whatever it may be, much less worrisome.  Marshall’s interpretation seems to fly in the face of the evidence IMHO.  But you can read Dawkins’ argument for yourself and make your own judgment.

 

I think my interpretation is enormously more likely than Marshall’s, but even if it isn’t, it is at least a possible interpretation.  I believe it is considered common courtesy in scholarly circles to interpret opponents’ arguments generously. Marshall’s failure to do so in this case does not inspire confidence in Marshall’s status as a scholar.   

 

BTW, two important, fairly recent announcements show quite vividly just how speculative OOL estimates are. The first announcement indicates that the actual number of planets in the universe may be three times greater than earlier estimates indicated. The second announcement indicates that living organisms can survive in an environment previously thought to be inimical to life.  Both announcements highlight the reasonableness of Dawkins’ argument as I describe it.  The more planets and the more livable environments there are, the more chances life has to evolve.  How many more new discoveries will improve life’s odds?  Only a fool would claim there won’t be any, which indicates the triviality of the OOL estimates that have Marshall so upset.

 

9-16.  Not only does Marshall’s interpretation seem highly unlikely, but even if we ignore that problem, that still wouldn’t necessarily solve all of Marshall’s problems, because Marshall’s accusation comes in two parts: (i) Dawkins said X; and (ii) X is false.  Even if we grant that Marshall got the first part right, that doesn’t necessarily mean that he got the second part right.  And in fact, the evidence that Marshall produces to establish the second part of his accusation against Dawkins does seem highly dubious.

 

Apparently Marshall understands how serious his accusation is, because he goes to the effort of offering eight or so separate pieces of evidence to support it.  But none of it is even slightly convincing.  Even taken as a group, the eight pieces of evidence Marshall offers are still completely inadequate to support the accusation.  Marshall should thank God that he’s a Christian apologist and not a lawyer.  Apologists can get away with presenting such feeble evidence.  A lawyer would get laughed out of court.

 

(And BTW, if this is what Marshall offers as evidence in this case, then that might also raise skepticism about the strength of the alleged evidence he claims to have on the God-issue.)

 

a.  Marshall’s first piece of evidence is that “Some researchers have concluded that ‘something equivalent to DNA’ simply can’t arise by chance ….” (66)  Well, that’s an interesting claim, but since Marshall provides no citations, there’s no reason to believe he’s telling the truth.  After all, as Section I shows, he’s been caught in quite a few pretty blatant falsehoods before.

 

b.  Marshall’s next piece of evidence is that Crick said it was “almost impossible” to give a probability estimate. (66)  Well, if Crick didn’t give any estimate at all, then what basis does Marshall have for claiming that Crick’s non-existent estimate conflicts with Dawkins’ estimate?  Also, Marshall doesn’t even say what the subject of Crick’s non-estimate was.  So not only does Marshall not cite an actual estimate, he also doesn’t provide any reason to believe that the estimate would be relevant, even if it had been provided.  Marshall’s evidence here is just gibberish.   

 

c.  Marshall’s third piece of evidence is that Collins “admits that no plausible mechanism has even been found yet.” (66)  Well, that’s not a probability estimate, is it?  Since it’s not a probability estimate, it doesn’t really contradict Dawkins’ estimate.

 

d.  Marshall’s fourth piece of evidence is that “Davies called the spontaneous self-assembly of DNA “ludicrously, almost un-thinkably -- small.” (66)  That’s pretty much exactly what Dawkins said.  Davies’ statement does not really contradict Dawkins’ estimate, rather it could easily be taken as supporting it, so this evidence is worthless too.

 

e.  Marshall’s fifth piece of evidence lists some of the components that modern cells have.  Why Marshall thinks that’s relevant to his specific accusation is a complete mystery.

 

f.  Marshall’s sixth piece of evidence is Hoyle and Wickramasinghe’s estimate, for which Marshall provides no specific citation.  Marshall’s frequent, blatant dishonesty on other points (as discussed in Section I) makes his undocumented claim here highly dubious.

 

g.  Marshall’s seventh piece of evidence is that it is “incredibly difficult” to imagine how early molecules evolved. (67)  Well, perhaps, but that doesn’t specifically contradict Dawkins’ estimate either, plus Marshall provides no citations, and we all know why that’s a problem.

 

h.  Marshall’s eighth piece of evidence is that “Yockey is scathing about proposed scenarios” and, among other things, cites Dawkins specifically. (67)  Again, there’s no specific estimate given, so this can’t be taken as actually contradicting Dawkins either.

 

In short, none of Marshall’s evidence is persuasive, and much of it is simply laughable. 

 

Also, it’s important to note that “random” means different things to different people.  It’s entirely possible that some of Marshall’s allegedly “gloomy” calculations were based on the standard assumption that all combinations are equally likely, but a biologist like Dawkins presumably would know that not all combinations are equally likely and that the calculation should be adjusted to take that into account.  To take just one obvious example, everyone knows that adenine is much more likely to bind with thymine than with guanine, which invalidates the standard assumption of pure randomness and eliminates vast numbers of random possibilities.  So a calculation that takes the laws of nature into account could quite easily come up with a probability estimate that is enormously more favorable than a calculation that doesn’t take the laws of nature into account, and there’s nothing the least bit inconsistent, much less dishonest, about that.  In other words, it’s important to compare apples to apples here, and there is little or no indication that Marshall does that.  Before accusing someone of dishonesty, it’s also important to understand the issues being discussed, and there’s little or no indication that Marshall does that either.

 

17.  Marshall also quotes Yockey as saying that “People who do not understand probability often say that extremely improbable events occur frequently.” (67) 

 

The claim that extremely improbable events occur frequently is undoubtedly true, as Yockey himself would undoubtedly agree, so Marshall’s argument here seems pointless.  Instead of just babbling inanely about things he doesn’t understand, perhaps Marshall ought to take a course in statistics.

 

Finally, I can’t help wondering about the incongruity of Marshall citing Yockey.  Yockey’s field is information theory. How did someone like Marshall, with “a light formal background in science,” happen to stumble across Yockey’s fairly technical book?  I suspect that Marshall never actually read Yockey’s book and that he actually got his information about Yockey off a friendly creationist website, accepted it just on blind faith, and then simply regurgitated it here without any further reflection.

 

18. Marshall quotes Dawkins, “Once the vital ingredient - some kind of genetic molecule - is in place, true Darwinian natural selection can follow;” and then Marshall counters with Berlinski’s statement that a coded molecule is *not* all that’s needed. (68) 

 

Marshall’s argument implies that Dawkins said that a genetic molecule is the only ingredient needed, but in reality Dawkins clearly implied that another element was needed too.  The phrase “in place” indicates the necessity of having an appropriate environment in which replication, mutation, and selection can occur.  Environmental considerations have been an important part of evolutionary thinking from Darwin’s day (or even earlier) to the present.  Marshall’s straw man argument not only ignores what Dawkins actually said, it ignores over 150 years of evolutionary thinking too.

 

If Marshall wants to contest evolutionary theory, he’s free to do so, of course.  BUT HE OUGHT TO FIND OUT WHAT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY ACTUALLY SAYS FIRST!

 

19.  Marshall says both Yockey and Berlinski mention the problem of homochirality, i.e., the “fact” that all amino acids in living tissue are left-handed. (68)  All three of them may want to do a little fact-checking.  What Marshall calls a “fact” is not actually a fact at all.  It’s been known for years that not all amino acids in living tissue are left-handed, since at least one amino acid has no handedness; some single-celled organisms consist exclusively of right-handed amino acids; and a few years ago a right-handed amino acid was also found in living human tissue.  (Full disclosure here, that human was sick, but both the human and the tissue were still very much alive, which conclusively refutes the “fact” that Marshall relies on here.)

 

20.  Marshall plaintively asks, “How did the first life gather only southpaws for its team?”  Marshall thinks he’s posing a serious question here, but all it does is show how ignorant he is.  As Darwin himself explained, just because a modern organism has certain features, that doesn’t necessarily mean that its ancestors had those features.  Darwin’s masterpiece is over 150 years old now.  If Marshall wants to criticize Darwin’s theory, then perhaps he ought to start by READING HIS DARN BOOK!

 

21.  In fact, Marshall’s error is even more fundamental than that.  This is a matter of simple logic.  “Evolution” necessarily implies change, i.e., that ancient organisms were not necessarily identical to modern organisms.  What part of “change” does Marshall not understand?  It’s simply mindboggling that Marshall can be that clueless.

 

22.  Marshall says mutations occur only once in a hundred million copyings. (69)  Nonsense.  The reality is that mutations are so common that each human being, on average, probably has at least two or three, so Marshall’s numbers just don’t add up.

 

23.  In fact, in the very next paragraph Marshall says that Michael Behe “admits that single ‘point’ mutations … occur so frequently that some drugs are rendered useless before they are marketed.”  Marshall is so oblivious, it apparently never even occurred to him that his “one in a hundred million” figure from the previous paragraph might be inconsistent with the “occur so frequently” phrase in this paragraph.

 

24.  Marshall quotes the creationist Sermonti’s claim that “[Mutations’] effect in all instances is to demolish ….” (69) Again, that’s just stupid.  I doubt there’s a mainstream genetics textbook anywhere in the world that doesn’t say that most mutations are either neutral or nearly neutral.  And again, since each of us probably has a few mutations ourselves, Sermonti’s idiocy should be pretty much self-evident to anyone not blinded by anti-evolution bias.

 

Sermonti is associated with the Dishonesty Institute.  Instead of relying on mainstream textbooks and professional journals, Marshall gets his information from the quacks and con artists associated with the Dishonesty Institute.  You hardly need to know anything else about Marshall’s book to realize just how ignorant it is.

 

25.  Marshall cites both Spetner and Sermonti for the proposition that “There aren’t any known, clear examples of a mutation that has added information.” (70)  I suggest that Marshall do a little research into gene duplication, a widely known process that does indeed add information.  I also suggest that Marshall consider the possibility of consulting mainstream sources next time.  Perhaps they will help him reduce the number of times he looks like such a fool.

 

26.  Marshall says he is “following with great interest” the debate over Behe’s “Edge of Evolution,” which “focuses on the known history of pathogens responsible for malaria, HIV, and food poisoning.” (70)  Then he claims that “So far, of [Behe’s] many passionate critics, I have seen none claim that … any [of those pathogens] have in fact managed to evolve into anything strikingly new.”

 

Well, Marshall must not have been following the debate closely enough or long enough.  Less than two months after EOE was released, biology student Abbie Smith posted a devastating comment at “Panda’s Thumb,” a widely followed science blog, and reported the existence of a relatively recently evolved protein-protein binding site in HIV.  In EOE, Behe had said that the evolution of such a site was essentially impossible, but Smith showed that not only was it possible in theory, it had actually happened!  So once again, a “gap” that ignoramuses like Behe thought was unbridgeable, turned out to be quite bridgeable after all.

 

See the details at: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/erv-hiv-versus.html#comment-panels

 

27.  Marshall urges his readers to “look at the fruit fly, the most abused ‘big’ creature on the planet.”  Marshall points out that research on the fruit fly genome yielded an entire book-full of mutations by 1938, and then he plaintively asks, “With millions of mutations over a century, why hasn’t science built a better fruit fly yet?” (71)  

 

Gee, I don’t know, maybe it’s because random mutations, by themselves, are generally *not* expected to be enough to “build a better fruit fly.”  It takes *both* mutations *and* selection to do that.  Marshall sometimes seems to be almost entirely ignorant of even the most basic concepts.

 

28.  Interestingly, Marshall doesn’t seem to be ignorant all the time.  Marshall himself was screeching about the need for both mutations and selection in some of his Amazon posts criticizing Dawkins, so why does Marshall fail to recognize that in his book?  The inconsistency seems rather stark.

 

29 - 32.  In a section specifically focused on genetics, Marshall claims that “Since hominids began chipping flint … our bodies have developed in remarkable ways,” and he lists, among others, the following:  “arms shortened;” “the rib cage widened … to allow arms to pivot more freely;” “the pelvis sunk lower and broadened out so we could walk upright;” “inner ear bones changed to balance so we could walk upright, waterski, and wait tables.” (71)  Naturally he provides no credible documentation for any of that.  The teleology implied in the last three items on the list is especially dubious.  It appears to be based more on wishful thinking than on rational analysis.

 

33 - 35.  Marshall continues with his list: “we learned to sing, swear, lie, pray, and make bad puns;” “it occurred to us that if we thought, we must be;” and “the Tao was spoken.”  Then Marshall asks, referring to all of the listed changes, “To the extent that the difference between man and chimps is genetic, where did the information that coded for all the needed changes come from?” (72)  Naturally Marshall provides no citation to any evolutionist who claims that the last three items are specifically attributable to genetic differences.  Perhaps Marshall included them in his list purely as propaganda.

 

36.  Regarding the source of the information that coded for the listed changes, Marshall says “To say the word [mutations] and think the problem is thereby solved turns common concepts of faith and science on their heads.” (72)

 

Well, yeah, I suppose if someone actually advocated that position, that would be pretty silly, but I don’t know anyone who actually does that, and Marshall sure doesn’t provide any citations to anyone saying that, so once again, his argument appears to be an illegitimate straw man argument.

 

Implying that atheists make ridiculous statements that they probably don’t make at all appears to be a common tactic with Marshall.  It seems extremely deceptive to me and makes me wonder if Marshall is also being dishonest in some of his other arguments.

 

37.  Marshall claims that Chomsky called the problem of language “far from trivial.” (72)  Well, that may be, but what does that have to do with genetics?  This section of the book deals with genetics.  Why does Marshall bring up topics without demonstrating how they are related to that topic?  He appears to be just regurgitating random ideas in the hope that something, anything, anything at all, might possibly stick;, but the only idea that really sticks is that Marshall simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

 

38.  Marshall also quotes some of Walker Percy’s flowery musings about language. (72)  Marshall is really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.  Pretending that one flowery but hopelessly ambiguous quote from an essay Percy published in 1975 has any specific relevance to modern genetics is downright laughable.  Language is “radically new”?  So what?  What does that have to do with genetics?  Marshall never says.

 

39.  Marshall says that people and chimps share about 96 percent of their DNA, which represents “thousands of useful changes.” (72)  Yes, indeed, which you might think would have tipped Marshall off to how ridiculous: (i) his “one in a hundred million” figure was; (ii) his Sermonti quote was; and (iii) his Spetner quote was.  But Marshall seems too blind to see even some of the most obvious problems.

 

40.  Marshall implies that whales evolved from land animal predecessors pretty quickly, and then he asks why humans don’t seem to have evolved any startlingly new features lately.  I’m not making this up, Marshall actually seems to be suggesting that there’s a problem with evolutionary theory, because evolution didn’t “turn us into whales, teach us to eat grass like cows, or to glide like flying squirrels.” (72-73)

 

Apparently Marshall thinks that if he can think of characteristics that human beings don’t have, that means that evolution, if true, is obligated to produce them.  But the truth-status of evolution does not depend on its catering to Christians who come up with idiotic lists like Marshall’s.  Evos never claimed that evolution would or even could produce every conceivably useful feature in every single species, so Marshall’s suggestion here is just another illogical, invalid, illegitimate attempt to beat up some poor straw man.

 

Also, Marshall’s argument here seems to imply that he doesn’t think humans are sufficiently different from other animals, while his argument in other places seems to highlight the radical differences between humans and other animals.  (83 and 97, for example.)  So which is it?  Marshall’s arguments seem to have him speaking out of both sides of his mouth.  Is that supposed to impress us with his truthfulness?

 

41.  Interestingly, Marshall seems to be content to believe in God, even though God apparently doesn’t grant every fool’s request, which raises the question of why Marshall seems to hold evolution to such a higher standard.  In the struggle to belittle evolution, ignorance and bias appear to be some of Marshall’s main weapons.

 

42 - 56.  Please don't laugh at Marshall's next argument.  He soberly assures us on p. 73, “I don’t mean to be silly ....” 

 

Marshall embellishes his previous argument.  If evolution involves mutations which increase reproductive fitness, then why don’t we see any such mutations today?  As Marshall puts it:  “We might expect innovations to show up first among athletes. They specialize in new 'adaptive roles': throwing a screwball, tackling punters, holding feet still while swimming upside down to music. What mutations have appeared to help out?  Did Gaylord Perry have special sweat glands on his hands that allowed him to throw a spitball without artificial lubrication? Did Pele have mutant bone structures on his forehead that let him send a 'header' into the goal? A web between fingers and cow-like skin on the hand might allow a baseball player to catch balls without a glove - and find reproductive opportunities in every major league town.”

 

Here are some of the more obvious problems in Marshall's argument:

 

a.  Baseball has been widely popular for only a few generations.  Marshall's argument seems to assume that the evolution of significant changes routinely occurs in that amount of time, but he provides no credible evidence to support that assumption.

 

b.  Marshall makes no attempt to document that having slimy fingers would improve anyone's pitching success.

 

c.  Nor does Marshall make any attempt to document that women would readily drop their panties for someone with slimy fingers, regardless of how successful a pitcher he was. 

 

d.  In fact, there apparently are already mutations that cause hyperhydrosis, a condition similar to what Marshall was talking about, but since there are medical therapies designed to treat it, I suspect that people don't find it much of a sexual turn-on. 

 

e.  Nor does Marshall make any attempt to show that evolving slimy fingers is the only way to improve one’s pitching ability.  As even Michael Behe points out in “Edge of Evolution,” there may be many possible ways to improve fitness in any given situation.  There doesn’t seem to be much reason to accept the hidden assumption in Marshall’s argument that only one or two exist.  (Gaylord Perry, for example, was a big, strong guy.  Marshall seems to have overlooked the possibility that Perry already had the benefit of a few helpful mutations.) 

 

f.  Marshall makes no attempt to document that baseball players with hands shaped like baseball gloves would be more successful as baseball players. This may have escaped Marshall's notice, but baseball players usually take their baseball gloves off, when they're at bat.

 

g.  Even assuming that one's success in baseball would be improved, that still leaves the possibility that having hands shaped like baseball mitts might be a disadvantage in most other occupations, thus reducing, not increasing, overall reproductive fitness. 

 

Guitar players, for example, have a reputation for being popular with girls.  How would someone with hands shaped like baseball mitts compete with a guitar player with normal hands? 

 

Driving a car might also be difficult for someone with deformed hands.  That might be especially important.  Cars may be to sex what churches are to sermons.  Not being able to drive very well might be a real disadvantage for someone looking for girls gone wild.

 

h.  Nor does Marshall make any attempt to show that evolving baseball-glove shaped hands is the only way to improve one’s fielding ability.  As Michael Behe points out in “Edge of Evolution,” there are usually many possible ways to improve fitness.  There doesn’t seem to be much reason to accept the hidden assumption in Marshall’s argument that only one or two exist.

 

i.  Marshall makes no attempt to document that women would drop their panties for someone with hands shaped like baseball gloves, regardless of their prowess.  (That's baseball prowess.)  Marshall’s argument seems to assume that if a woman had a choice between a pretty good baseball player who looked normal, and a really good baseball player who looked like a freak, she would go with the freak; but there’s no reason to believe that Marshall’s assumption is correct.  It's possible that most women would not want to risk having a baby that looked like a freak.

 

Marshall's baseball-based argument seems to have way more than just three strikes against it. 

 

j.  The problem of the slow pace of evolution also applies in the context of soccer.

 

k.  Marshall's "mutant soccer forehead" argument seems vulnerable to the objection about freakish appearances too.  If anything, it's even less likely that a woman would drop her drawers for someone who looked like an escapee from a Klingon battlecruiser.  A girl's face is her fortune.  What woman would risk having a baby girl with a forehead like that?

 

l.  On the issue of tackling punters, Marshall didn’t identify which sport he was talking about.  That seems rather sloppy.  If he was talking about American football, Marshall may want to check the rule book.  I’m not sure that tackling punters is even allowed.  And if that is the case, then Marshall needs to explain how evolving the specific ability to perform a prohibited act would make one a success.

 

m.  And even if tackling punters were allowed, what mutations would improve someone’s ability to tackle them?  Being bigger?  Sorry, apparently there are already mutations for that.  Being faster?  Ditto.  Being more aggressive?  That’s what ‘roids are for.  Again, Marshall appears to have overlooked the possibility that there’s more than one way to skin the evolutionary cat.  Or tackle the elusive punter. 

 

n. The argument about the pace of evolution also applies in the context of synchronized swimming, perhaps with even more force here than in the other sports Marshall mentioned, since synchronized swimming may be a relatively new sport.  Unfortunately, Marshall doesn’t provide much detail.

 

o.  And if Marshall thinks the reason there’s a chain of restaurants named “Hooters” is because what guys are really looking for is someone who has the amazing ability of “holding feet still while swimming upside down to music,” then he’s even more clueless than I thought.

 

Marshall said we shouldn’t view his arguments as silly?  In a way, he’s right.  His arguments aren’t silly, they’re stupid.

 

57.  Marshall quotes an article written in 1971 – yes, 1971! – and plaintively notes that “it does surprise me that something so fundamental as the mutations thought to have created us must be spoken of so vaguely.” (73–74)

 

When a clueless dilettante complains that an article written more than thirty years before the Human Genome Project was completed isn’t up to his personal standards of clarity and precision on the issue of mutations, then I think it’s time for dictionary publishers to make room for a new picture next to the word “chutzpah.”

 

58.  I also find it quite curious that Marshall seems so concerned about the lack of detail in an article written over 30 years ago about a relatively new area of scientific research, but doesn’t seem very concerned about the lack of detail in theologians’ discussions of the history of life.  Shouldn’t that trigger even more concern?  After all, theology is a much older discipline than molecular biology, isn’t it?  So shouldn’t we expect much greater specificity from theology?  Marshall’s bias seems rather obvious here.

 

59.  Marshall’s discussion of the argument about irreducible complexity (IC) is so garbled that in some places it’s simply incomprehensible.  (As discussed in Section I, above, a key part of Marshall’s argument is also blatantly false.)  In his first paragraph, Marshall says “[Behe] finds it hard to imagine mutations suddenly creating several new structures and fitting them together in a complex system.” (74)  Marshall is apparently using the word “structures” here to mean “parts,” because he’s specifically talking about Behe’s argument, and in Behe’s argument, that’s what IC systems are made of.  But in Marshall’s second paragraph, criticizing Dawkins’ response to the challenge of IC (which we’ll get to in a minute), Marshall says Dawkins answered the wrong question, because according to Marshall, “The question isn’t what happens when half the complete *structure* is missing.  The question is what happens when half its *parts* are missing.”  (Emphasis in original.)  Since Marshall apparently uses “structure” and “parts” interchangeably, his second paragraph basically says, “The question isn’t what happens when half the complete *structure* is missing.  The question is what happens when half its *structure* is missing.”  So Marshall’s argument is basically just incomprehensible gibberish.

 

I commented before on Marshall’s carelessness with terminology.  His lack of discipline makes himself look very, very foolish sometimes.

 

60.  Nor is that the only problem.  Even if we charitably make allowances for Marshall’s apparent inability to understand basic terminology, that still wouldn’t solve Marshall’s problem.  It is obviously possible for “parts” to be distributed evenly throughout “structures,” and in those cases, which for all we know constitute the vast majority of cases, “half of the parts” will still mean essentially the same thing as “half of the structure,” and Marshall’s argument will still boil down to the same gibberish.

 

61.  And even that is still not the end of Marshall’s problems.  His argument is basically that “Behe finds it hard to imagine …,” which is just another version of the Argument from Personal Incredulity, a pretty feeble argument under any circumstances, and particularly feeble in this case, since the person whose incredulity is being used as the measuring stick is Michael Behe, the same person who testified under oath in support of science textbooks that advised students that “If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them” and that “Christians must disregard [science theories] that contradict the Bible.”

 

And let’s not forget Behe’s recent masterpiece, “The Edge of Evolution,” which pointed to HIV to illustrate the impossibility of new protein-protein binding sites evolving.  Behe’s claim of impossibility lasted for just two months before Abbie Smith, a mere student, shot it down by showing that the supposedly impossible event was not only possible in theory, but had actually already been observed.  And where had it been observed?  It had been observed in HIV itself, the very organism that Behe thought demonstrated its impossibility! 

 

So it seems that there is indeed some room for incredulity in Marshall’s argument, but the incredulity should probably attach, not to the evolution of new parts for new structures, but to Marshall’s reliance on such a notorious buffoon to make his case.

 

62 - 63.  Marshall continues his assault on evolution, plaintively asking, “What good is an eye without an optic nerve?” (74)  Apparently Marshall thinks that’s quite a clever question.

 

a.  But Dawkins reported that even some types of single-celled organisms have functional visual systems. (CMI, p. 142)  Dawkins provided a citation to that discussion in “The God Delusion.”  Didn’t Marshall bother reading it?  I suggest that the real problem isn’t eyes without optic nerves, but rather ignorant dilettantes like Marshall, who has eyes but apparently still doesn’t see.

 

b.  One of the irritating things about debating people who support ID is that they are frequently as ignorant about ID as they are about evolution.  In this case, the obvious error in Marshall’s thinking was admitted several years ago by none other than Marshall’s own personal hero, Michael Behe, who said: “The current definition [of IC] puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system....  The difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems, it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place. Thus there is an asymmetry between my current definition of [IC] and the task facing natural selection.”  In short, Behe himself indicates that questions like Marshall’s are focused on the wrong issue.  Behe issued that recantation in a 2001 article, “Reply to My Critics,” published in a widely circulated journal.  Perhaps Marshall missed it.  But Behe also testified during the Kitzmiller trial four years later about that very same problem, and Kitzmiller was one of the most widely followed trials of the century so far, with Behe’s testimony probably being the highlight of the whole thing.  In fact, Behe’s testimony on this specific issue was specifically cited in the court’s published decision.  How in God’s name did Marshall manage to miss all that?

 

Marshall obviously thinks his question is quite revealing, and indeed it is, but what it really seems to reveal is that Marshall: (i) tries to criticize arguments before he’s even read them; and (ii) is so lazy that he doesn’t even bother keeping up with what major ID-proponents say about major issues in major public statements.

 

64.  Still on the subject of irreducible complexity, Marshall claims that, for fruit flies, “two wings are probably optimal.” (75)  Really?  How does Marshall know that?  He provides no citation here, so apparently he’s basing this conclusion on his own expertise, but is he really an expert entomologist?  I find that rather doubtful. 

 

The fact of the matter is that it is probably impossible to say what is or isn’t optimal in cases like this without considering the environment.  In Hawaii, for example, fruit flies with two wings frequently got blown out to sea, which reduced their reproductive fitness.  The evolution of wingless flies helped solve that problem.  And there are other environments where flies with four wings flourish.  So two wings is *not* always optimal, no matter what a blustering fool like Marshall may say.

 

When someone pretends to have expertise that he does not in fact have, that’s dishonest.  And when someone presents claims as being true when he has no legitimate reason for thinking that they are true, that shows such a reckless disregard for the truth that it may as well be called dishonest too.  It is highly unlikely that Marshall possesses the expertise to justify some of the claims he makes, and he probably hasn’t the faintest idea whether some of his claims are true or not.  He seems to be just making a lot of this stuff up out of thin air.  And that may as well be called dishonest too.

 

65.  Marshall claims that arguments like Behe’s irreducible complexity deserve to be heard respectfully. (75)  Well, if Marshall wants to worship Behe, that’s his right, but for him to pretend that Behe has anything meaningful to add to the ID-argument is simply poppycock.  The conceptual challenge of IC was answered more than 60 years ago.  Even the Vatican recently barred Behe’s colleagues from the Dishonesty Institute from participating in a papal conference discussing origins, because the conference organizers didn’t think they had anything meaningful to contribute.  If Marshall wants other people to be open-minded, then he shouldn’t be so closed-minded himself.  ID-proponents have been around for at least 2500 years now, and the scientific accomplishments specifically attributable to ID concepts is still zero.  Evolution’s hypotheses, on the other hand, have been confirmed as accurate by literally millions of pieces of data.  If Marshall wants other people to be open-minded, then Marshall himself should be open-minded enough to admit that evolution has been one of the biggest success stories in the history of science, and that ID has been one of the biggest failures. 

 

66.  Marshall suggests that “Even if it works, evolution may reveal purpose.” (75)  Yes, exactly.  There is no way to falsify the God-hypothesis, because it is consistent with every logically conceivable possibility.  Being open to potential falsification is generally considered to be one of the distinguishing characteristics of scientific theories, and Marshall’s own words indicate that ID is *not* open to potential falsification, which is exactly why it is *not* considered to be a genuinely scientific theory. 

 

The only real question here is whether Marshall is open-minded enough to acknowledge the implications of his own argument.  Anyone want to bet on that?  Anyone?  Anyone?

 

 

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *    

 

Marshall’s science-inanity is not limited to his book.  His laughable attempts to defend Behe’s “Edge of Evolution” can be read in the Amazon forums for that book, and his equally pathetic attacks on Richard Dawkins’ scientific arguments are discussed at length in the Amazon forums listed below.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Marshalls-Scientific-Errors-Allegation-1/forum/Fx238ZENNZM4HA2/TxX0HNK48MX1QN/1/ref=cm_cd_fp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0618918248

 

http://www.amazon.com/David-Marshalls-Scientific-Errors-Allegations/forum/Fx238ZENNZM4HA2/Tx3NGD4W0R9PNJV/1/ref=cm_cd_fp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0618918248

 

http://www.amazon.com/David-Marshalls-Scientific-Errors-Allegations/forum/Fx238ZENNZM4HA2/Tx2NNWA9P4SB7FD/1/ref=cm_cd_fp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0618918248

 

 

SECTION VI.  BIAS, INCONSISTENCIES, AND OTHER TWISTED LOGIC

 

This section lists some of the arguments demonstrating Marshall’s lack of critical thinking skills.  It’s probably not surprising that Marshall frequently seems to ignore basic logic.  As Section I indicates, he doesn’t seem to worry too much about getting his facts straight either.  Nevertheless, it’s interesting to see how frequently and how blatantly Marshall seems to just ignore basic logic, since so much of his book is about the alleged rationality of faith.  The apparent inconsistencies are interesting too.  They seem to indicate that Marshall can’t keep his own story straight and might be another indication that Marshall isn’t being honest.  But you can judge for yourselves from the items listed below.

 

1. The New Atheists see the Bible as a dubious document.  Marshall asks, “Are they reading it right?” (12)

 

This is probably one of Marshall’s most important arguments: the Bible is valid evidence, but only if it is read correctly.  Unfortunately, Marshall says nothing whatsoever about how to determine in a rigorous manner what the correct interpretation of the Bible is.  I guess Marshall thinks that unsupported special pleading is all he needs.

 

Marshall’s own interpretations of the Bible sometimes seem quite imaginative, or even, as suggested by his comments about the book of Judges, downright false. (See Section I.)  Some of Marshall’s imaginative interpretations remind me of comic book conventions featuring conference discussions on topics such as “The X-Men’s Phoenix Force as a Metaphor for the Role of Tutors in a University Writing Center.”  Discussions like that may say a lot more about the imagination of the lecturer than about the actual intent of the comic books’ authors.  Marshall’s flights of fancy seem to be on about that same level.

 

2.  Marshall argues that “Christianity stands on the side of ordinary people against the intellectual imperialism of those who imprison the human spirit in credulous, tunnel-visioned scientism.” (16)  This sounds like pandering to the uneducated masses.  Hardly persuasive.  And later, Marshall himself endorses arguments to authority. (122)  Whatever happened to “standing on the side of ordinary people”?  Marshall’s arguments sometimes just don’t seem very durable.  It seems rather pointless to take his arguments seriously, since Marshall himself doesn’t seem to take them seriously. 

 

Marshall does take what looks like a half-hearted swipe at being rigorous, saying that arguments to authority must be “properly used.”  Unfortunately, he never clarifies exactly when relying on experts is “proper” and when it isn’t.  One gets the distinct impression that he thinks it’s proper when he does it, and improper when an atheist does it.  Again, hardly persuasive.

 

3.  Marshall continues:  “We’ve been bamboozled into accepting (in the name of science, though not always from scientists) a lie about truth and how to find it, an untruth that narrows life and hands truth to tunnel-visioned specialists.” (16) 

 

Couple of problems here.  First, Marshall’s stirring rhetoric would be a lot more persuasive if he supported it with some meaningful citations.  Second, Marshall can complain about science all he wants, but the fact remains that the findings of scientists can frequently be verified by reproducible, empirical tests; and that probably gives them a bit more credibility than the con artists saying, “Trust me, I know what the Bible really means, even though I have little or no generally accepted, objective evidence to justify my claims.”

 

4.  Dawkins said Swinburne attempted to “justify” the Holocaust.  Marshall complained that Dawkins wasn’t clear in his use of the term “justify,” claiming that: “This is an ambivalent phrase. It could mean showing why Hitler was right to kill the Jews. It could also mean, (as Swinburne meant), the far different and difficult task of asking why God may have allowed the Holocaust. Dawkins leaves the two potential meanings tangled ….” (19)

 

Given his own problems with unclear writing, it seems a bit hypocritical for Marshall to complain about someone else’s ambiguous writing, especially in this case, where what Dawkins wrote seems perfectly clear.  Read for yourself:

 

First, Dawkins quotes Swinburne:  “My suffering provides me with the opportunity to show courage and patience. It provides you with the opportunity to show sympathy and to help alleviate my suffering. And it provides society with the opportunity to choose whether or not to invest a lot of money to find a cure for this or that particular kind of suffering ... Although a good God regrets our suffering, our greatest concern is surely that each of us shall show patience, sympathy, and generosity and, thereby, form a holy character. Some people badly need to be ill for their own sake, and some people badly need to be ill to provide important choices for others. Only in that way can some people be encouraged to make serious choices about the sort of person they are to be. For other people, illness is not so valuable.”

Then Dawkins comments on what Swinburne said:  “This grotesque piece of reasoning, so damningly typical of the theological mind, reminds me of an occasion when I was on a television panel with Swinburne, and also with our Oxford colleague Professor Peter Atkins. Swinburne at one point attempted to justify the Holocaust on the grounds that it gave the Jews a wonderful opportunity to be courageous and noble.”

 

Dawkins’ meaning seems perfectly clear, especially since he provided such a lengthy quote that shows exactly what Swinburne was doing.  If Marshall sees any lack of clarity there, perhaps it’s because he wants to, not because it actually exists.

 

5.  Interestingly, Marshall’s own writing can be pretty tangled.  Still on the Swinburne issue, Marshall says, “Dawkins leaves the two potential meanings tangled, then ends with the borrowed quip, ‘May you rot in hell.’” (19-20)  Anyone reading that who didn’t already know what had happened would probably think that it was Dawkins himself who had said, “May you rot in hell;” but it was actually someone else.  So before Marshall starts fabricating complaints about someone else’s allegedly murky writing, perhaps he ought to do something about his own, even murkier writing.

 

6.  On the issue of the evidence for God, Dawkins mocked Swinburne for implying that there could be such a thing as too much evidence.  Marshall tries to turn the tables and mocks Dawkins for allegedly not really thinking about the issue.  Marshall implies that there can indeed be too much evidence and cites the example of a wife demanding that her husband supply 24-hour streaming webcasts from his hotel room. (20)  But Marshall’s analogy is badly flawed, since the wife presumably already knows her husband exists, while the existence of God is very much in doubt.  Conjuring up flawed analogies does not seem very rational.  Before Marshall mocks someone else for not thinking, perhaps he ought to try a little thinking himself. 

 

7.  Marshall implies that Origen argued that the evidence for the Christian faith included miracles. (21)  But later, Marshall says that many miracle reports are “arbitrary and silly” (45), and that “miracle” is probably used sometimes as nothing more than “a synonym for ‘amazing or mysterious event.’” (82)  Yes, exactly.  Miracle reports frequently are as dubious as Marshall himself indicates, which raises the question of why he apparently approves of Origen’s reliance on them.

 

8.  Marshall paraphrases Wolterstoff, “… a person has a right to believe something if he does believe it and there’s no course of investigation open to him by which he could test its truth, or if he has studied contrary evidence and is still convinced.” (22)  In other words, no positive evidence whatsoever is required, just as Dawkins implied.  Marshall tries to refute Dawkins by quoting a renowned philosopher who actually seems to agree with Dawkins.  That’s just laughable.  Quoting Wolterstoff doesn’t help Marshall’s case, it badly undermines it; but he is apparently so blinded by prejudice, he can’t see what’s right in front of him.

 

9.  Marshall complains about Dawkins’ alleged definition of faith. (22)  As explained in Sections I and IV, Marshall’s complaint about Dawkins has some very serious problems; but what I want to highlight here is how bizarre Marshall’s own definition is.  For Marshall, faith means “Sticking to what you have good reason to think is true, in the light of difficulties.” (30)  But Marshall’s definition is so murky, it could use some further definition itself.  What the heck does “good reason” mean?  And what the heck does “in the light of difficulties” mean?  It looks like Marshall is saying that he believes *because* there are difficulties, and that just sounds idiotic.  Would Marshall also accept that believing that 3 + 4 = 2 is also rational, “in light of difficulties”?  Marshall’s definition of “faith” is probably one of the key parts of the book, and yet it looks like absolute gibberish.

 

10.  Marshall complains about Dawkins repeating claims without considering contrary evidence. (23)  As explained in Section I, Marshall’s complaint here is partly based on an obvious misrepresentation of what Dawkins said, but the point I want to make here is that even apart from that error, this is still a curious complaint for Marshall to make, given his own history of repeating falsehoods.  See the last part of Section I, paras. a and b, for two obvious examples, and the websites cited at the end of Section V for a whole host of others.  Marshall’s hypocrisy seems pretty obvious.

 

11.  Apparently desperate to claim the mantle of scientific respectability for religion, Marshall says, “In fact, scientific evidence *is* based on faith – exactly the same sort of faith as informed Christians have in God.” (29) (Emphasis in original.) 

 

Marshall is talking about the fact that believers and scientists both trust secondhand reports, but Marshall has a big problem here, because his argument seems to simply assume what needs to be proved, i.e., that the secondhand reports that believers rely on have essentially the same reliability as the secondhand reports that scientists rely on.  Assuming what needs to be proved is obviously illogical.

 

Indeed there’s good reason to suspect that the reliability of the reports that believers rely on and the reliability of the reports that scientists rely on are vastly different.  Religious reports can be notoriously unreliable, as Marshall himself indicates (45 and 82), and there is frequently no practical, objective way to test even the most basic claims.  Scientific claims about basic principles, on the other hand, not only can be but actually are subjected to repeated, rigorous, independent, objective testing.  To take just one example, if claims about the basic principles of aerodynamics were simply false, then airplanes would probably not be such a reliable form of travel.  Marshall fails to demonstrate that even a single, basic, supernatural claim can be tested as rigorously as that single scientific example; and there are literally thousands of other scientific claims that could have been used as examples.  So Marshall’s argument here seems quite dubious, to say the least.

 

Science earned its mantle of respectability by backing up its most basic claims with massive amounts of independently verifiable, empirical evidence.  If believers want to claim the mantle of scientific respectability too, I suggest that whining like little babies whenever they’re asked to provide evidence to support their most basic claims is probably not the most convincing approach.

 

12.  Marshall claims “there is no scientific test to prove your colleagues honest, reliable, and competent.” (29) 

 

And yet huge airplanes still take off and fly, sick patients still get better after taking their medicine, and both fossils and genes still turn up in the order predicted by evolution.  Apparently Marshall thinks that the best way to deal with inconvenient evidence is to simply ignore it, which looks quite a bit like “faith in the teeth of the evidence.”

 

13.  Marshall says, “Those who make wild claims about the scientific method often base their arguments not on good human evidence (which they discount), but rumor, wild guesses, and extrapolations that would embarrass a shaman.” (30) 

 

Couple of major problems here.  First, Marshall cites no specific examples here, and he’s been caught in obvious falsehoods on many other occasions, so I’m not inclined to just accept his complaint just on blind faith.  Second, before Marshall criticizes others for making wild extrapolations, he ought to make sure he’s not making any himself.  Oops, too late!  See Marshall’s utterly insane extrapolation about “lovers’ quarrels,” (205) discussed below.

 

14.  Regarding the evidence for God, Marshall says God may not want to reveal himself in clear evidence (30), and that “difficulty and mystery are inevitable.” (31)  That sounds like Marshall is trying to lower expectations here.  Not only does that make his argument seem pretty weak, it also seems to conflict with Marshall’s mocking Dennett for not recognizing what’s “in plain sight.” (79)  Marshall needs to make up his mind.  It seems inconsistent, if not outright dishonest, for him to say “difficulty and mystery” on one page and then say “in plain sight” on another page.

 

15.  Marshall says, “If Christianity accepts the need for evidence, what sort of evidence does it offer?  It would be as unreasonable to demand that all the evidence conform to the scientific method as that your wife prove she is faithful mathematically.” (30)  Marshall’s analogy here is obviously flawed.  You know your wife exists, while God’s existence is still very much in doubt.  Marshall’s apples-and-oranges comparisons may not be a really effective way to prove the rationality of Christian apologetics.

 

16.  Marshall argues that Christianity invented science and seems to use that fact as evidence for the rationality of Christianity itself.  (37-40)  Not only is Marshall’s argument based on dubious facts – Christianity did not really invent science at all – but it’s based on dubious logic too, because it seems to rely on the illogical proposition that correlation proves causation.  Furthermore, Marshall himself seems to question the value of science:  “Does tipping test tubes, spinning particle accelerators, chipping fossils, or thinking systematically about the fruits of such activities really convey some special insight into the nature of reality?” (36)  Well, if science is of such little value, then why does Marshall waste our time with his dubious argument about Christianity having invented it?

 

17. Marshall implies that new atheists accuse Christians of believing it a “virtue not to understand,” and then he triumphantly claims to have refuted that accusation. (37)  But there are a couple of problems with Marshall’s possibly premature crowing.  First, as discussed in Section IV, Marshall’s attempted refutation leaves out some very substantial and extremely problematic evidence.  Second, and this is my main point here, Marshall provides no citation to show that atheists really do make that accusation.  In short, Marshall’s triumph seems to have been over some poor straw man.  Marshall seems to make a regular habit of assaulting imaginary foes, which makes his triumphal celebrations seem unwarranted, if not downright foolish.

 

18.  Dawkins claimed that a survey showed that just 3.3% of “Britain’s eminent scientists” strongly believe in a personal God, while 78.8% disbelieve.  Marshall finds those stats “a little hard to jibe with experience.” (39)

 

Apparently Marshall’s “experience” is that the people who talk with him after he speaks in churches on other topics are often “enthusiastic Christians who work in one or another area of science.”  Well, that’s nice, but what in God’s name does that have to do with the survey that Dawkins cited?  First, Marshall apparently lives in Washington, while Dawkins’ survey relates to Britain.  Does Marshall have any idea about how far apart those two places are?  Second, Dawkins’ survey specifically refers to “eminent scientists,” while Marshall’s “experience” is completely silent on that matter.  Third, Dawkins’ survey was not limited to churchgoers, while Marshall’s “experience” apparently was.  Marshall’s experience seems to have no real relevance whatsoever to Dawkins’ survey, and his reservations about the survey results seem utterly inane.

 

19.  Marshall’s “experience” also gives him reservations about a survey of the American National Academy of Science, which found only 7% believing in a personal God.  Although Marshall seems to have gotten the right country this time, nevertheless, his doubts here are about as unfounded as in the previous example.  There’s no reason to believe Marshall’s experience has any relevance whatsoever to the NAS survey, so his doubts here seem to reflect a willful refusal to accept reality, not rational analysis.  It kind of makes one wonder whether his belief in God is justified by the same thing.

 

20.  Marshall says, “If scientists believe for nonrational reasons, then their lack of faith isn’t relevant to the truth of religion.” (41)  What the heck does that even mean?  Some of what Marshall writes seems to be nothing but incomprehensible gibberish.

 

It’s possible that Marshall left out a word or two in the subject sentence, but even if you fill in likely possibilities, the sentence still doesn’t make any sense.  God either exists, or he doesn’t.  It’s simply a brute fact.  Whether someone believes or disbelieves, whether for rational or nonrational reasons, simply has no impact on that brute fact.  Even ignoring Marshall’s poor writing, his argument still seems like gibberish.

 

21.  Marshall cites the case of Richard Sternberg to “document” the alleged hostility toward religion. (42)  But that case involved Sternberg’s authorizing the publication of a paper advocating intelligent design.  Citing that case to document hostility toward religion seems to imply that ID might be a religious movement, and that seems inconsistent with Marshall’s staunch defense of ID as a scientific movement.  Of course, nobody really expects clarity or consistency from people defending ID, but wouldn’t it be nice if they’d at least make an effort?

 

22.  Marshall quotes Smith’s claim about universities’ alleged hostility toward religion. (42)  Then Marshall lists several “virulent post-Christian thinkers” and says that “quite a few of these folk threaten to go down in history as quacks.” (43)  But where, exactly, are these people “going down in history”?  Marshall is in such rush to sprint through his laundry list of “virulent post-Christian thinkers” that he doesn’t take time to provide any details, but it seems likely that if any of them are in fact “going down in history,” then it’s probably happening in today’s modern universities, i.e., the very places that Marshall implies would coddle “virulent post-Christian thinkers.”  The apparent inconsistency in Marshall’s argument seems pretty obvious.

 

23. According to Marshall, “Karl Marx convinced a third of the world … that money was the real problem.” (55)  Marshall provides no citation to document the truth of this rather dubious claim.  (Despite his self-proclaimed expertise in Communist ideology, Marshall seems to have some serious misconceptions about what prominent communists actually said.)  But the real problem here is that he also fails to explain why seeing money as the real problem is objectionable.  Didn’t Jesus himself tell stories indicating much the same thing?  And didn’t some of the most famous and most highly respected Christians in history take vows of poverty in their attempts to follow Christ more closely?  Does Marshall object to that too?  Marshall’s argument seems highly dubious, not only factually but theologically. 

 

24.  Marshall also claims that, “Communism then proved conclusively that people can hate one another in a cashless society.” (55)  Again, this is a highly dubious statement.  Marshall provides no citation to any communist society that didn’t use cash, nor does he provide any citation to document the level of violence in any such society, nor does he provide any rational explanation for why that would be meaningful, even if it had ever happened.  As far as I know, human relationships throughout history have been difficult on occasion.  Why does Marshall seem so surprised by that?  Sometimes it seems like he’s just being deliberately obtuse.

 

25.  Marshall seems quite proud of the fact that Genesis “shows how love of knowledge can lead to loss of innocence,” (55) but it seems inconsistent with his insistence that Christianity emphasizes the need for evidence and reason. (21-22)

 

26.  Marshall seems to accept that evolution is a reasonably accurate explanation for the history of life on earth: “DNA does seem to suggest that life is more or less like a tree, and we are in some way related.” (58)  But he spends a lot of time casting doubt on it, including most of Chapter Four, scapegoating it for the Holocaust (Chapter Eleven), etc.  The inconsistency seems pretty obvious.  Marshall seems to be pandering to those Christians who still reject evolution, which seems a bit curious.  If Christians really treasure rationality, then why does Marshall apparently feel the need to pander to people he thinks are wrong?  Hmm.  Perhaps Christians don’t actually treasure rationality as much as Marshall implies.

 

27.  Marshall completely mangles Dawkins’ explanation of why the mere existence of irreducible complexity would not be a logical basis for inferring the validity of ID (see Section I) and then says, “At times like this, the scientific community can resemble a tree fort with a sign affixed to the wall: “Gurlz Kepe Out!” (64)  That’s utterly hilarious.  Marshall uses his own lack of comprehension to justify an attack on “the scientific community.”  I wonder if Marshall thinks that’s an example of the kind of rationality displayed by “great Christian thinkers through the centuries.”

 

28.  Marshall accepts that life appears related, but complains that “mutations seem a clumsy instrument to explain that relationship.” (77)  Well, mutations may seem “clumsy” to a dilettante who would rather pretend to be an expert than read an actual book on the subject, but some of the most prestigious science organizations, professional journals, and societies in the world that deal with genetics, including the National Academy of Sciences, the Genetics Society of America, and the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, have publicly and strongly endorsed evolution.  Gee, I wonder who I should get my information about mutations from, the National Academy of Sciences or an ignorant dilettante pretending to be an expert.

 

29.  Taking another swipe at “Christianity-invented” science, Marshall says, “Scientists are human, and therefore sapiens, but also sometimes full of hot air.” (77)  Marshall’s cheap shot seems pointless, unless he can show that Christian apologists are *not* full of hot air too.  Judging from his own book, I’m not optimistic about Marshall’s chances there!

 

30.  First Marshall claims he’s “heard many firsthand stories that, if true, pretty much rule out materialism as a possible explanation for reality.”  Then he says, “My point at the moment isn’t to argue that such experiences are real.” (82)  Well, if Marshall isn’t going to argue that these experiences are real, then why bother bringing them up in the first place?  Perhaps he’s just pandering to superstitious theists.  Pandering seems to be more important to Marshall than rational analysis.

 

31.  Marshall asks, “If evolution saw fit to make us moral … creatures, why only us?” (83)  Marshall apparently thinks evolution is obligated to cater to his idiosyncratic wishes.  Naturally, he provides no sensible justification.

 

Another thing strange about Marshall’s argument is that he apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK for God to work in mysterious ways, but complains when he thinks evolution does.  So Marshall’s complaint seems not only ignorant, but also biased.

 

32.  Research indicates that people sometimes remember data better if it is presented in a story, and that people remember things well if they stand out in just one way.  Marshall implies that the Bible’s warning about “false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves,” validates that research. (84)  Marshall is badly confused.  Research conclusions are inferred from subjects’ responses to stimuli, not from the stimuli themselves.  Marshall’s argument implies the opposite, which is not only ignorant, but also illogical.  Marshall’s failure to understand that scientific validation comes from looking at responses, not at stimuli, seems to indicate a serious lack of critical thinking skills.

 

33.  Marshall claims that Dennett “is seduced by the animistic impulse,” in that he attributes intentionality to inanimate objects, namely, memes. (85)  Some of Marshall’s evidence is that Dennett uses animistic terms like “propagate,” “parasitize,” “work unobtrusively,” “acquire tricks,” “exploit romance,” “proliferate,” and “benefit from adaptation.”  Marshall’s evidence is completely unpersuasive.  The action words Marshall cites can also indicate function, not just purpose.  Inanimate objects, of course, can and frequently do have functions, so the mere fact that Dennett uses action words is not enough to support Marshall’s complaint. 

 

Function and purpose are pretty basic concepts.  Marshall’s failure to distinguish between the two seems to indicate a serious lack of critical thinking skills.

 

It’s also important to remember here, though Marshall seems to have forgotten, that memes are generally associated with human activity.  If memes seem to be acting intentionally, that could indeed reflect intentional conduct, not by the memes themselves, but by the humans who are manipulating them.  I would have thought this obvious.  Perhaps Marshall is so busy looking down his nose that he can’t see what’s right in front of it.

 

And one last thing.  If Marshall is so concerned about people being “seduced by the animistic impulse,” then perhaps he ought to be careful about his own language.  It was just two pages ago that we saw Marshall babbling inanely about how “evolution saw fit to make us moral.” (83)  Marshall apparently has trouble keeping his arguments straight even for just three consecutive pages.

 

34.  Marshall also complains that Dennett “wrongly ascribes creative power to forces that consume and destroy.” (87)  This appears to be a follow-up to the same idea discussed above, and it is just as misguided.  Marshall may not be able to understand this, but creation and destruction can often be like two sides of the same coin, so just because a force has the power to destroy doesn’t mean it doesn’t also have the power to create.  One of the most prominent economists of the 20^th century was famous for his concept of “creative destruction.”  And there’s another force in nature that has much the same aspects as Shumpeter’s gale.  It’s surprising that Marshall overlooks it here.  It’s called “natural selection,” and Marshall himself actually referred to its creative destruction in a comment about how it helps save rabbits from going to the dogs. (53)  His failure to recognize its relevance here indicates how pathetically unreflective he is.

 

35.  Marshall also complains about Dennett “blaming the ideas themselves, rather than the people who buy and sell them,” (87) which Marshall claims “subverts human choice.”  This seems a rather astonishing complaint, since Marshall spends a very substantial part of his own book scapegoating inanimate ideas, like science, evolution, Social Darwinism, etc., rather than blaming the people who may have misused those ideas; and says, “Ideas, like people, need to be held to account.” (136)  Marshall’s hypocrisy seems pretty blatant.

 

36.  Marshall concedes that God commands a lot of horrifying, violent acts in the Old Testament, but excuses it all by implying that the ends justify the means.  All that gruesome violence “may be why the Jews survived.” (106)  Well, perhaps, but you certainly don’t need religion to come up with that excuse!

 

37.  Marshall disputes the charge that the Bible is not unified, saying that “like billions of other readers, I do find unity (within diversity) in the Bible.” (110) 

 

Marshall’s argument is utterly ridiculous.  First, without a rational justification, his personal opinion is simply meaningless.  Second, the reference to “billions of other readers” looks suspiciously like an argument from popularity, and Marshall himself disparages such illegitimate arguments (45), so the inconsistency seems pretty obvious.  Third, how does Marshall know that billions of others have actually read the Bible?  That seems a rather remarkable claim, and Marshall cites no evidence whatsoever to justify it.  Fourth, even if billions of people did read the Bible, how does Marshall know what they thought about its “unity”?  Marshall apparently pretends to be many things in his book: an expert entomologist, an expert psychologist, an expert paleontologist, an expert on communism, genetics, and many other things.  Is he now pretending to be a mind-reader?  When someone makes bold claims about things he can’t possibly know, it makes him look dishonest.  Marshall looks very dishonest indeed.

 

38.  In response to Harris’ jibe about Shakespeare being a better writer than God, Marshall says he agrees with the “National Review,” which apparently said that compared to the teachings of Jesus, even Shakespeare is “shallow stuff.” (111-112) 

 

This is another of Marshall’s bait-and-switch arguments.  Marshall pretends that pointing out the alleged moral quality of Jesus’ teachings is a legitimate response to a comment about their literary quality, but those are obviously two radically different things.  Marshall resorts to such illegitimate arguments with alarming frequency.  Apparently he knows that such arguments are illegitimate, because he’s criticized others for using them, so the fact that he uses them himself seems downright dishonest.

 

39.  Marshall says the Gospels “portray a person who convinces those with the most acute insight into human nature that … no one could have made up the man described.” (117) 

 

Not only does Marshall provide no credible evidence to support this almost completely naked assertion, but it’s also interesting to note that many Christians feel that one of the proofs of Christ’s divinity is that He fulfills so many of the OT prophecies, which raises the question:  If Jesus really does fulfill a bunch of OT prophecies, then it’s arguable that someone *could* have invented such a person, to a greater or lesser degree, merely by following those OT breadcrumbs.  So Marshall’s argument seems to have some major holes in it.

 

40.  Another of Marshall’s proofs that God is real is that the Gospels have “changed the world for the better.” (117)  That’s obviously an illogical argument.  Lots of documents have changed the world for the better.  That doesn’t mean that their authors or their subjects were gods.

 

41.  Marshall implies that the Gospels are still reliable, despite having been written a few decades after Christ’s death, because at Marshall’s own family reunions, “stories were not circulated, but told firsthand, about events that happened *six* decades ago.” (118) (Emphasis in the original.) 

 

This appears to be another apples-and-oranges comparison.  What makes the Gospels most dubious is probably not the mere passage of time, but rather the inclusion of miracle stories.  Did the stories at Marshall’s family reunions include miracle stories?  If not, then the implied analogy seems deeply flawed.

 

Allow me to suggest another analogy.  People who like golfing and fishing sometimes tell stories too, and I don’t think anyone in their right mind would believe some of those stories, even though some of them are told just hours after the alleged events.  That’s the real problem that Marshall has to confront.

 

42.  Marshall implies that the Gospels should be considered reliable, because “Many of Jesus’ first followers would have been alive, and ready to talk, when the Gospels were written,” apparently making it easy to check the Gospels’ accuracy. (118)

 

Marshall’s argument is simply bizarre.  The ready availability of evidence to confirm or contradict a story obviously does not guarantee truthfulness, otherwise there would be a lot fewer falsehoods in Marshall’s own book.

 

Marshall’s argument seems to imply that the early Christians actually checked the evangelists’ truthfulness prior to giving their assent, but there doesn’t seem to be any reason to make that assumption.  After all, look at how easy it is to document the falsehoods in Marshall’s book, and yet there are still some people who apparently just didn’t bother.  Why should we believe that people bothered 2000 years ago?

 

43.  Marshall says that “Argument to authority, when properly used, can be a useful tool of rational thought” (122); but when Dawkins appeals to “scholarly theologians,” Marshall complains about it. (125)  Hmm.  So arguments to authority are OK when the authorities agree with Marshall, but not when they agree with Dawkins.  Is that what Marshall is trying to say here?  LOL

 

44.  Marshall says, “[Jesus] is the most interesting person on Earth.” (129)  That kind of silliness seems more appropriate for a TV commercial for a Mexican beer than for a serious discussion about the evidence for God.

 

45.  Marshall says, “Judging beliefs by the crimes they commit seems a dreary task, but justifiable:  Ideas, like people, need to be held to account.  But a quick glance at history shows that no faith or antifaith that gains power remains unspotted.” (136)

 

Exactly.  Everybody does it.  So what use is religion?

 

46.  I have pointed out some of Marshall’s other cheap shots.  Perhaps the most mean-spirited of them is on p. 144.  In response to Harris’ claim that “It is remarkably easy to arrive at this epiphany[, i.e., that slavery is patently evil],” Marshall says, “Only a historically sheltered child of the West and the product of a politically correct public school system could achieve such breathtaking and uncritical naivité (sic).”

 

Marshall’s cheap shot – against someone claiming that slavery is evil, no less! -- is remarkable both for its vindictiveness and for its wrong-headedness.  According to Wikipedia, Harris actually grew up in a mixed-faith home, spent a year abroad studying other faiths, and actually graduated from a private, not a public, university.  So Marshall’s cheap shot seems to say a lot more about Marshall’s own twisted personality than it does about Harris’ allegedly sheltered upbringing.

 

47.  It’s also interesting to note that Marshall previously suggested that the Christian dogma about Natural Law theory made it impossible for man not to be aware of fundamental moral precepts. (103)  Marshall’s spiteful blast at Harris seems to indicate that slavery would *not* be labeled as evil under the Christian concept of natural law, which seems to raise the question of whether the Christian concept of natural law is worth anything at all.

 

48.  Still on slavery, Marshall claims that “Some … Social Darwinists saw blacks as a distinct species, and Australian aborigines ‘at least two grades below the African negro.’” (144) 

 

Marshall’s argument here seems irrelevant, since the issue is slavery, not whether Social Darwinists saw differences between different races of people.

 

Nor is that Marshall’s only problem.  For someone who appears to be trying to draw a clear distinction between theists and atheists, Marshall seems remarkably indifferent to where the boundaries between them are.  It is well known that Social Darwinism was widely popular among Christians.  That being the case, it is illogical to impugn Social Darwinism en masse, since that’s tantamount to impugning Christians and, perhaps, Christianity itself.  Marshall’s argument here is worse than meaningless; it may actually imply that religion itself might be pretty much worthless as a moral guide.

 

49.  Still on slavery, Marshall claims that “Ernst Haeckel, the foremost evolutionary thinker in Germany (and a good friend of Darwin) did in fact compare some folk to farm (or jungle) animals.”

 

This also seems irrelevant, since it has no specific connection to slavery.  Also note the cheap shots taken at evolution and Darwin.  Marshall apparently just can’t help himself and feels that he simply must pander to theists who reject evolution. 

 

And Haeckel, BTW, was a Christian for most of his life.  I wonder why Marshall didn’t mention that.

 

50.  Marshall says, “The equality of humanity was denied by Greeks, Gnostics, Indians (Asians and American), Africans, Chinese, and countless smaller tribes.” (144)

 

Yeah, well, the equality of humanity was also denied by many Christians, so what’s Marshall’s point?

 

51.  Marshall says, “Enlightenment figures such as Hume, Voltaire, Locke, and Jefferson favored slavery, either in word or deed.” (144) 

 

Yeah, well, so did countless Christian slave-owners, so what’s Marshall’s point?

 

52.  Arguing that “Jesus Frees Slaves,” Marshall says, “When the Normans conquered England, rather than enslaving enemies, as was the custom, they set thousands of slaves free.” (144)

 

Not only does Marshall conveniently leave out some troubling information here (see Section IV), but as Avalos points out, Marshall’s claims about the Bible’s role in the abolitionist movement are akin to asserting that the fact that chimney sweeps have disappeared proves that there was an organized movement to eliminate them.  In reality, of course, there was no need for an organized movement to eliminate chimney sweeps, since they declined for economic reasons.  Marshall seems to be completely clueless here.

 

53.  Marshall says, “Slavery didn’t die in Greece or Iberia, however. As historian Richard Fletcher explained, ‘peripheral outsiders tend to model themselves upon the hegemonic power on whose flanks they are situated.’” (145)

 

Oh, wow, this is even more pathetic than the Nazis who claimed they were only following orders.  The slave-owning Christians in this case weren’t even following orders, they were merely following an example.  Does Marshall really think that’s an acceptable excuse?

 

54.  Marshall says, “With slavery an accepted institution, and warfare a way of life, as they became more ‘civilized’ themselves, it was natural for the Portuguese and Spaniards to go into the trade on a massive scale in Africa and the Americas. The English, French, and Americans followed their lead.” (145) 

 

Yeah, exactly.  Economic motives trump the Bible here.  It’s funny how Marshall is perfectly happy to admit the relevance of economic factors in this case, but completely blind to the same factors leading up to the Holocaust, the communist revolutions in Russia and China, and other cases.  Gee, it’s almost like Marshall has one set of standards for Christians and a completely different set for atheists. 

 

55.  Marshall says, “The New Testament implicitly undermines slavery in many ways: by affirming the nobility of manual labor (Jesus was a carpenter), teaching the essential equality of humankind, and talking eloquently and frequently about slavery.” (146) 

 

What the heck does “affirming the nobility of manual labor” have to do with ending slavery?  The implied argument here, “Jesus was a carpenter, therefore slavery is bad,” is just obviously stupid.

 

56 - 57.  Marshall says, “Harris tells us that Christian theologians who argued against slavery ‘lost’ the argument. How so? Does Harris presume to know how the Bible should be interpreted better than Thomas Aquinas at least four popes, John Wesley, Samuel Johnson, John Newton, Charles Finney, and Edmund Burke?” (146)  This argument has two major problems. 

 

a.  As Avalos points out, “By that logic, we could just as well ask whether Marshall presumes to know how the Bible should be interpreted better than John Calvin, Martin Luther, at least four other ‘pro-slavery popes’ (e.g., Pope Gregory I, Innocent III, Nicholas V and Urban VIII), in addition to a multitude of other major American Christian figures (Charles Hodge, etc.) who advocated slavery.”

 

b.  Marshall’s argument is also an illegitimate bait-and-switch, because interpreting the Bible correctly is not necessarily equivalent to winning arguments.

 

58.  Marshall says, “Wesley quotes the Bible five times here. How theologically illiterate he must have been not to realize that the Bible supports slavery.” (147)  But Avalos points out:  “[W]e could just as well say of Augustine, Luther, Charles Hodge, and Pope Gregory I, all of whom supported slavery: ‘How theologically illiterate they must have been not to realize that the Bible does not support slavery.’”

 

59.  Marshall finally cites some real evidence:  “…as the movie Amazing Grace beautifully shows ….” (147)  Oh, wait.  It’s just a movie.  I take it back.  That’s not really evidence at all.

 

60.  Marshall berates Dawkins for choosing unrepresentative examples of religious believers to present in his books and television programs. (173-174)  So who does Marshall discuss as examples of atheists?  Stalin, Kaczynski, Pol Pot, Abimael Guzman (founder of Sendero Luminoso), Mao, and Hitler.  (219)  Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

 

61.  Dawkins repeated a quote attributed to Pat Robertson about God using natural disasters like Katrina to punish sinners, but the quote came from a spoof website and, like some of Marshall’s quotes, it wasn’t really true.  Dawkins apparently suspected as much, because he warned readers about it in a long note at the bottom of the page, but Marshall vehemently berates Dawkins anyway for using the spoof quote. (175)

 

I discuss this in more detail in the section on Chapter 10.  The limited point I want to make here is that Marshall’s entire complaint is largely fatuous.  While it’s certainly arguable that Dawkins was foolish for not avoiding this controversy by taking the simple step of using only real quotes – which, of course, were available in abundance – nevertheless, it seems like empty pedantry for Marshall to try and make a mountain out of such a tiny molehill. 

 

Even worse than looking like a pedantic twit, Marshall also looks like quite a hypocrite too.  Marshall himself cites spoof sources to illustrate some of his points.  He refers to both the spoof movie “Airplane!” in the Introduction (misrepresenting both the title of the film and its contents) and also to an Emily Litella skit in Chapter Six.  Why does Marshall criticize Dawkins for using spoof sources to help him make his points, when Marshall himself uses spoof sources to help him make his points?

 

I think it’s fair to argue – briefly! -- that it would have been better for Dawkins to have stuck to actual quotes, but Marshall’s contrived outrage and apparent hypocrisy seem far worse than what Dawkins did.

 

62.  Marshall introduces the Unabomber, who “took German [at Harvard], where Nietzsche … was on the menu.” (191)

 

I don’t know if Marshall knows anything about studying foreign languages, but unless Nietzsche wrote something like, “Wo ist die toilette?” or “Ich habe einen grossen schwarzen hund,” it doesn’t seem too likely that Kaczynski would have read much, if anything, by him in his German classes.  So why is Marshall so alarmed?  Perhaps he’s just putting on a phony act.

 

63.  Marshall lists five principles that Ernst Haeckel allegedly derived from evolution (194), but he makes no effort at all to evaluate whether Haeckel’s logic was correct.  That seems puzzling.  Marshall doesn’t take Dawkins’ word for everything that Dawkins says, so why does Marshall apparently take Haeckel’s word for what Haeckel says?  The inconsistency here seems quite obvious.  I wonder how Marshall apparently misses it.

 

64.  Marshall says, “If there’s an internal logic to ‘The Origin of Species,’ or the modern turn away from God, we should notice it most among people who develop ‘evolutionary ethics’ in the test tubes of post-Christian societies.” (194)

 

This naked assertion doesn’t make any sense at all.  “Origin” was about biological evolution.  What justification does Marshall provide for thinking that biological evolution would be different in post-Christian societies than in other societies?  And what the heck is “evolutionary ethics”?  Naked assertions.  Undefined terms.  Is this really an example of the rationality of Christian apologetics?

 

Furthermore, not only does Marshall not define “evolutionary ethics,” he also said earlier that “evolution allows some people to hear God’s voice in ‘a new and more subtle way.’” (59)  Marshall is presumably trying to draw a distinction between atheism and theism, but how can he do that in this case, if he provides no reason for believing that whatever it is he’s upset about isn’t due to someone “hearing God’s voice in a new and more subtle way”?  Marshall’s argument doesn’t seem to make any sense in the context of his book.  It looks like scapegoating to appease an angry mob, not like rational argument.

 

65.  Marshall says, “In the first years of the 20^th century, Darwinian racism wormed its way into colonial propaganda.” (195)  Marshall appears to be assuming that “Darwinian racism” is entirely distinct from Christian racism, but that seems highly unlikely, and is something that should be proved, not merely assumed.  Marshall’s argument here, like several other of his arguments, seems to have some serious problems with logic.

 

66.  Marshall claims that “Darwin and Harris putter around evolutionary theory as if they’d lost their glasses.  ‘Is there a moral basis here?  That’s not it.  Oh, over there!  No?” (196) Naturally, Marshall provides no citation to document his claim, nor does he show that theists do any better.  Before Marshall starts throwing stones at atheism, perhaps he ought to consider the vulnerability of the stained glass windows in theism’s house.

 

67.  Dawkins said Stalin’s eugenics theory was “insane.” Marshall challenges Dawkins’ comment, asking “why is it insane, ‘from an evolutionary point of view,’ to kill people outside your genetic or community line?” (197)

 

This is another of Marshall’s tiresome bait-and-switch arguments.  Dawkins said Stalin’s eugenics theory was insane, not that killing people outside one’s genetic or community line was.  If Marshall wants to criticize Dawkins, maybe it would be a good idea for Marshall to READ WHAT THE HECK DAWKINS ACTUALLY SAID!

 

68.  Marshall points out that “correlation does not prove causation.” (203)  Yeah, exactly.  So why does Marshall argue repeatedly as if it does?  Atheists are associated with war and other violence, therefore atheism must cause war and other violence, seems to be the theme of much of the early part of this chapter. 

 

And Christians are associated with science?  Wonderful!  Apparently Marshall thinks that correlation proves that Christianity must have invented science. (76 and 189) 

 

And Christians are also associated with certain, progressive, political and social reforms?  Excellent!  Apparently Marshall thinks that correlation proves that Christianity was the cause of the reforms too. (151)

 

Why is it that Marshall can see the obvious on some occasions, but not on others?

 

69.  After mentioning Madonna, Sanger’s sex advice to her 16-year old granddaughter, Mead’s 1920’s book, Huxley’s “Brave New World,” Skinners’ “Walden Two,” and LSD, Marshall says, “The violent crime rate in every state in America as much as tripled over the next two decades.” (205)  This blast comes just two pages after Marshall’s comment about correlation not proving causation.  Is Marshall trying to look stupid?

 

70.  In response to Harris’ claim (for which Marshall provides no citation) that “some kinds of social dysfunction have not reached the same level in Europe yet, [because they’ve put away their Bibles],” Marshall answers that while he was at Oxford, he “often woke up to lovers’ quarrels.” (205)

 

Seriously, that’s it.  That’s Marshall’s response.  I guess his argument is, “I often woke up to lovers’ quarrels, therefore Harris must be wrong about the level of social dysfunction in Europe.”  Well, all I can say is that if stupidity were an Olympic event, Marshall would certainly deserve some consideration.  A) What do lovers’ quarrels have to do with the kind of social dysfunction that Harris was referring to?  B) How does Marshall know the quarrelling lovers had put away their Bibles?  C) What about Marshall’s admonition about avoiding “generalizations from a distance based on a few suspect sources”? (176)  Does he really think that generalizing from occasional lovers’ quarrels in a single college town in Britain to the entire continent of Europe is *not* a “generalization from a distance based on a few suspect sources”?  D) And what about his admonition that “correlation does not prove causation”? (203) Doesn’t his argument here imply exactly such an improper argument?  The fatuity of Marshall’s argument is simply astounding, and the fact that Harvest House Publishers and Dr. Paul Griffiths at the Duke Divinity School support it seems equally astounding.

 

Marshall’s frequently bizarre logic seems like it might be a serious problem for someone trying to argue for the rationality of Christianity.

 

71.  Marshall says, “It’s not that [atheism] doesn’t explain anything. Rather, it can’t explain everything.” (209) 

 

Marshall’s complaint has some obvious problems.  First, he hasn’t shown that atheism even claims to explain everything, and if it doesn’t even make that claim, then why should it be criticized for not doing something that it never claimed to do in the first place? 

 

Second, Marshall’s book is presumably drawing a distinction between theism and atheism.  Claiming that atheism doesn’t explain everything is a meaningless complaint, unless Marshall can show that theism *does* explain everything, and even Marshall presumably isn’t dumb enough to make *that* claim, unless he thinks that “poof” counts as an explanation. 

 

In fact, Marshall himself seems to indicate that theism doesn’t explain everything either.  “No one owns a crystal-clear picture of reality.” (46)  And “part of the Christian answer to this question [about suffering] can only be, as it has always been, ‘We see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.’” (57)  So why fault atheism for apparently having the same kind of problems that theism has?  Marshall’s arguments seem to have about as much rigor as a wisp of smoke on a breezy day.  His inconsistent arguments make it look like he’s completely incapable of controlling his bias.

 

72-91.  There are about 20 questions in the section titled “Random Acts of Inquiry” like: “Who thought of making things out of strings?”  “Why is our planet just where it needs to be, in a ‘Goldilocks Zone,’ neither too hot nor cold, in deadly space?” And, “How did life begin?” (211-214)

 

Random indeed, except they all seem to be hinting at a God-of-the-gaps argument.  GOTG arguments frequently go something like this:

(i) Science (or atheism) still doesn’t know how to explain X in enough detail to satisfy ignorant theists. 

(ii)  Therefore, God did it. 

 

Notice how GOTG arguments magically transform ignorance into evidence for God.  No wonder some GOTG-advocates seem so eager to sabotage science curricula.  The more ignorance there is, the more scope there is for their ignorance-based arguments. 

 

The section was titled “Random Acts of Inquiry,” but it could just as easily have been titled “Random Acts of Gullibility.”  Where, exactly, was the inquiry?  Is Marshall really so shallow that he thinks merely asking questions like that actually means something?

 

92.  Marshall says that genetics has “definitively confirmed” the “universal responsibility of humanity.” (212)

 

So now Marshall wants us to believe that he’s an expert in the field of genetics?  Marshall seems to have an even richer fantasy life than Walter Mitty.

 

In any case, “responsibility” appears to refer to a moral principle, and it seems pretty dubious to claim that genetics confirms the morality of anything, including universal responsibility.  That looks an awful lot like what’s sometimes called the “naturalistic fallacy.”  The fallacy is a well-known problem in logic.  If Marshall would spend a bit less time in imagining himself to be an expert, and a bit more time in doing some basic research, he might make fewer errors.

 

93.  Marshall says, “I have met dozens of intelligent and honest people whose stories, if true, would alone spell the doom of the materialistic paradigm.” (213)

 

I guess Marshall thinks that telling stories counts as evidence, even if he has no way of knowing if the stories are true or not.  That sounds quite a bit like blind faith, doesn’t it?

 

And vouching for the intelligence and honesty of the storytellers may not carry much weight, when the person doing the vouching seems to be neither intelligent nor honest himself.

 

94.  Marshall calls anthropic coincidences a “scientific clue to divine activity.” (214)  Marshall seems to be trying to turn ignorance into evidence again.  But ignorance does not imply knowledge; it only implies ignorance.

 

95. Marshall implies that only “friendly Jesus scholars” appear in [Dawkins’] footnotes. (215)  But one of those footnotes is to a collection of quotes from people like Martin Luther, one of the most significant Protestant theologians in history.  Is Marshall really such a fool as to imply that quoting Martin Luther is somehow inappropriate?

 

And Dawkins also quotes such noteworthy theologians as Pascal, Swinburne, and McGrath.  Is Marshall really such a fool as to imply that quoting them is somehow inappropriate?

 

Sometimes the stupidity of Marshall’s arguments is just breathtaking.

 

96.  Marshall asks (I’m not making this up!) where the new atheists’ references to contrarian thinkers such as Rene Girard (who apparently came up with the “contrarian” view that scapegoating is bad!), Arthur Brooks, or Alexander Solzhenitsyn are.  What a pedantic twit Marshall is!  I’ve read books by Alister McGrath that didn’t cite any of those three individuals either.  If Marshall complained about McGrath failing to cite those three, educated Christians would laugh Marshall to scorn, because McGrath’s academic credentials and intellectual achievements are enormously superior to Marshall’s relatively puny CV.  Laughing Marshall to scorn seems an appropriate response in this case too.

 

Furthermore, the new atheists already spend quite a bit of time talking about racists.  The fact that they might not specifically mention Solzhenitsyn’s anti-Semitism hardly seems significant, though Marshall’s apparent fondness for reputed racists seems a bit worrisome.

 

Finally, Marshall may want to check his dates.  Brooks’ book was published AFTER most of the new atheists’ books.  What kind of pedantic twit complains that someone didn’t cite something that hadn’t even been published yet?

 

97 - 98.  After implying in Chapter One that Christianity’s alleged invention of science serves as evidence for the rationality of Christianity itself , as if mere correlation proved causation, Marshall then repeatedly implies that science is not trustworthy and is pursued by evil people.  “Scientists are the heroes of every Marxist state;” and “Hardly any travesty of justice, any ‘boot stamping on a human face forever,’ has not been instituted in the name of science: Social Darwinism, eugenics, abortion, the new infanticide, free love, LSD, gas chambers, the Gulag.  Slave ships were a technological advance.” (219) 

 

Marshall’s argument there seems to have two serious problems with it.  First, not only does Marshall’s apparent contempt for science seem inconsistent with his apparent pride in Christianity’s having allegedly invented it, but Marshall also seems to be ignorant of the fact that both Social Darwinism and eugenics were widely popular among Christians, which would seem to indicate under Marshall’s argument that Christianity might have to bear some of the responsibility for some of that “boot stamping on a human face forever.”

 

 

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

 

Marshall’s book frequently reminded me of Roseanne Barr singing the national anthem.  It’s so awful, it’s actually offensive.

 

 

SECTION VII.  MISCELLANEOUS (by chapter)

 

Introduction: (pp. 7-12)

Let me make a small introduction here myself.  As the previous sections indicate, Marshall’s book seems thoroughly dishonest, biased, and incompetent, especially on issues related to science and religion.  The following sections are a chapter-by-chapter list of miscellaneous falsehoods, omissions, etc., that I decided not to put in the specific categories discussed previously.

 

1.  Marshall says that Dennett “attempts to show that evolution can explain religion away without change.” (8)  First, Marshall fails to provide a specific citation to where Dennett does any such thing.  Second, what the heck does “explain religion away without change” even mean?  Evolution is a theory specifically focused on change.  Marshall’s cryptic phrase, like several of his other arguments, seems incomprehensible.

 

2.  Marshall says Christians should not use a mocking tone in responding to the new atheists (10), but he engages in plenty of mockery himself, both in his book and in his internet posts.  That seems hypocritical.

 

 

Chapter 1: Have Christians Lost Their Minds? (pp. 15-34)

1.  Atheists frequently accuse Christians of relying on blind faith.  Refuting that accusation seems to be one of Marshall’s main goals in this chapter, so it’s interesting to note how many naked assertions Marshall trots out, since Marshall himself implies that naked assertions imply some sort of blind faith. (15)

 

1.  The new atheists, like Dawkins, define faith as something like “belief in the absence of or even in the teeth of evidence.”  In what is perhaps one of the book’s most important arguments, Marshall indicates that the definition is completely inappropriate, largely because Christian thinkers across the centuries don’t agree with it. (15-25)

 

As we’ll see, Marshall’s argument is rather dubious, but even if it weren’t, that’s hardly the end of the story.  The issue is not necessarily settled by what a relatively small group of academics say.  It’s also reasonable to consider what the unwashed masses in the real world do.  If Christians living in the real world generally act like they have blind faith -- and not only is it common knowledge that they do, but even Marshall’s own evidence seems to confirm that they do -- then there doesn’t seem to be much justification for upbraiding Dawkins on this issue the way Marshall does.

 

Marshall himself apparently wants to be “on the side of ordinary people against … intellectual imperialism ….” (16), so it seems a bit inconsistent, to say the least, that he seems to forget all about ordinary people almost as soon as he writes those words.  Perhaps Marshall thinks that the best way to deal with inconvenient evidence is simply to ignore it.

 

Finally, it’s interesting to note that throughout the book many of Marshall’s own arguments seem to take the form, “X said it, I believe it, and that’s that.”  That kind of argument looks quite a bit like blind faith too.

 

2.  Among other statements, Marshall cites Dennett’s claim that believers consider it demeaning to ask God tough questions, which, obviously, can include questions about evidence (15); Harris’ statement about belief systems being “uncontaminated by evidence” (15); and Dawkins’ defining faith as leading people to believe “in the total absence of supporting evidence.” (16)  But after getting our hopes up that he will respond to these challenges about evidence by actually providing some of it, Marshall essentially abandons the effort.  Apparently, he doesn’t want atheists to accuse Christians of lacking sufficient evidence, but he doesn’t want to actually produce much of it himself either, at least not in this book.

 

3.  Marshall proclaims he’s “against the intellectual imperialism of those who imprison the human spirit in credulous, tunnel-visioned scientism.” (16)  Translation:  He resents being asked to produce credible evidence.  Marshall’s bravery in opposing requests for evidence reminds me of the fox who bravely decided that the grapes beyond his reach were probably sour anyway.

 

(NOTE:  The complaint about scientism may have some merit, but that doesn’t excuse Marshall from the responsibility to tell the truth.  If he doesn’t have any credible evidence, then he ought to just say so, without all the tap-dancing.)

 

4.  Marshall points out that Yockey doubts that life can come from nonlife by chance. (17)  And the relevance of this to the “blind faith” issue is …..???  This seems to be an attempt to pander to evolution-deniers.  There seems to be quite a bit of such pandering in the book, which might be taken as undermining Marshall’s claims about the rationality of believers.

 

5.  Marshall also says that reading between the lines shows that the Doubting Thomas story in the Bible isn’t as strong an endorsement of blind faith as sometimes argued.  But the fact remains that Jesus is the main character, and he did in fact publicly humiliate Thomas for requesting more evidence.  Marshall provides no credible justification for basically ignoring what the main character in the story did.  Marshall seems to be arguing that the Bible doesn’t mean what the Bible itself seems to say, rather it means what he says it means.  That seems little more than special pleading.

 

6.  Marshall claims Jesus also did miracles. (17-18) Yeah, but the alleged miracles apparently weren’t enough to convince Thomas, so why should they convince us?

 

7.  Marshall claims that John explains that the miracles were recorded “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ.” (18)  In other words, John appears to have had some sort of agenda.  When someone has an agenda, it doesn’t usually enhance his credibility, rather it diminishes it.

 

8.  Marshall claims that the statement in Hebrews 11 that “faith is … the evidence of things not seen,” is *not* an intellectual cop-out implying blind faith.  Marshall continues:  “[Hebrews 11] says faith ‘is’ evidence[.]  …  Evidence is a reason to believe something.” (18)  Yeah, exactly.  The evidence for faith is faith.  And that *does* sound like an intellectual cop-out.

 

9.  Marshall says “… even the passages cited to defend the ‘blind faith meme’ can easily be read to mean the opposite….” (18)  Well, if the Bible is so ambiguous that it can support two diametrically opposed interpretations, then why pay any attention to it at all?  Marshall criticized Dawkins for an allegedly ambiguous statement about Swinburne’s “justifying” the Holocaust (19), but he seems to be OK with the Bible’s ambiguities.  Hmm.  Sounds a bit biased.

 

10.  Marshall says that “Christian belief demands evidence, though it is a broader and more social evidence than the scientific method in the strict sense allows.” (18)

 

In other words, Christian belief is not based on the same kind of evidence as science, and Marshall’s strenuous efforts to claim the same kind of reliability for religion as for science (29) is simply a joke.

 

11.  Marshall says that “Hearing about [evidence] from a credible source is the most common such reason [for believing something]” (18), and that “Argument to authority, when properly used, can be a useful tool of rational thought.” (122)  

 

Well, that may be, but Marshall provides no clue about what the standards are for establishing either credibility or authority.  Perhaps he thinks blind faith is the standard.

 

12.  Marshall notes, apparently with approval, that Swinburne asked Dawkins to join the debate “and not try to win by shouting.” (20)  Interesting comment, in light of Marshall’s own behavior.  In the Amazon forums Marshall frequently tried to win debates by getting Amazon to delete critical comments about his book.  That seems rather hypocritical.

 

13.  Marshall adds, “What you shouldn’t want is a biologist who insists on belittling philosophical ideas that he hasn’t shown the patience to read and understand.” (20)  Interesting comment, since Marshall himself has publicly passed judgment on many arguments that he himself indicates that he never even read.  That seems rather hypocritical.

 

14.  Marshall says that “hubris about the `scientific method’ often masks an almost childish naivete about what constitutes a good argument in non-scientific fields.” (28)

 

In other words, we can ignore Marshall’s arguments trying to equate the evidence for religious beliefs with the evidence for scientific beliefs. (29)  The truth of the matter is that there is a significant difference.  Marshall’s inconsistency is a major problem throughout the book.  It really seems pointless to agree with anything he says, because he seems to change his mind so frequently.

 

Also, notice that Marshall puts “scientific method” in quotes.  Why does he do that? It’s standard usage, and he’s not quoting anyone, so what’s he doing?  It seems most likely that he wants to imply that the scientific method lacks credibility.  And that looks a lot like pandering.

 

15.  Marshall offers up the Biblical exhortation to “Taste and see that the Lord is good” as an example of the Bible’s frequent appeals to reason and evidence. (18)  That seems a pretty poor example of “reason,” since taste frequently, if not always, depends on idiosyncratic preferences, not objective, rational standards.

 

16.  Marshall implies that Swinburne had evidence to refute Dawkins (19), but he provides no specific citation or summary.  Naked assertion.

 

17.  Marshall cites, apparently with approval, McGrath disputing Dawkins’ claim that Christianity demands blind trust, “even in the teeth of evidence,” and claiming that he had never met a Christian theologian who agreed with Dawkins’ “nonsensical” definition. (20)  Both Marshall and McGrath need to get out more.  Henry Morris, Ken Ham, and Kurt Wise, all three of whom are very well known evangelicals, have all endorsed the need for Christians to maintain their belief in young-Earth beliefs, even in the teeth of evidence.  And William Dembski, perhaps the most influential proponent of intelligent design (ID) in the entire world, has made similar comments about his religious beliefs.  All four of those individuals are major figures in the evangelical community.  Neither Marshall nor McGrath ever heard of them?

 

18.  Marshall cites Augustine’s claim that “Much of what we know is based on facts not visible to the senses.” (21)  Marshall may be too stubborn to admit it, but that actually sounds like Augustine is supporting Dawkins, not Marshall.

 

19.  Marshall cites Thomas Aquinas’ claim that “Christianity was uncertain not because the evidence is poor, but because of ‘the weakness of the human intellect.’” (21)  So let me get this straight.  We know our faith in God is rational, because we can’t understand God rationally.  Hmm.  I think Marshall just cited a justification of blind faith.

 

20.  Marshall cites Kepler’s argument that religion must be rational, because God is rational, and that humans must also be rational, because they were created in the image of God. (21)  Oh yeah.  Faith is rational, and we can prove it by arguing in circles!  LOL

 

21 - 25.  I discussed Marshall’s dishonesty about Shermer’s survey about faith in Section I.  On a related point, Marshall clearly implies that, regardless of what Shermer’s view is, Marshall himself believes that the survey responses indicated a rational basis for faith.  Some of the most popular justifications for faith were something like good design, natural beauty, perfection, complexity of the universe, or “the experience of God” in everyday life.  (24)  Marshall offers no credible explanation for why any of those five justifications should be considered rational.  (Shermer himself provides a pretty persuasive argument for why they should *not* be considered rational.)

 

In an Amazon forum, Marshall indicated that they should be considered rational, because they contained a large evidential component.  (I’m not making that up, he really did say that!)  So I guess that Marshall thinks that the lady who thinks her tin-foil hat is keeping the elephants out of Times Square qualifies as rational too. LOL

 

26.  Marshall says the least popular justification for believing in God given in a survey he conducted was, “I enjoy the fellowship in church, and that makes it easier to believe.” (24) Marshall said that justification had nothing to do with reason.  But whatever happened to “taste and see how good the Lord is”? (18)  The justification given in Marshall’s survey seems very similar to that, and Marshall seemed to think that was rational, so why isn’t the survey response rational?  Marshall’s standards for rationality don’t seem very rigorous.

 

27.  Marshall says that some of the most popular justifications – like “Faith in God helps make sense of life;” “The evidence seems good;” and “I have had supernatural experience that taught me the reality of the spiritual world – “had at least some intellectual component.”  Well, that’s nice, but “having an intellectual component” is not necessarily the same thing as being “rational,” i.e., “a conclusion that follows logically from credible evidence.”

 

Here’s one example of a supernatural experience.  On November 22, 2004, Dena Schlosser chopped off her eleven month old baby’s arms with a knife, because “Schlosser had heard God commanding her.”  Marshall may find experiences like that “rational,” but I think Marshall’s argument here has some serious problems.

 

28.  Marshall claims that only one person agreed with Dawkins’ definition of faith, “Believing what you know isn’t true,” and a second person picked a similar definition. (24)  Quick!  Somebody call McGrath and let him know!  No, really, this shows that there are at least some Christians who agree with a definition that Marshall claims is ridiculous.  (And which, don’t forget, Marshall failed to show that Dawkins even said in the first place!)

 

29.  Marshall cites Pascal pointing out that faith often follows action.  (26)  Marshall takes that as supporting evidence, but it could also be taken as indicating cognitive dissonance, and Marshall does little or nothing to resolve the ambiguity.  Marshall apparently fancies himself as being quite knowledgeable about psychology.  (There are several references to psychology and/or psychologists in the book.)  I wonder why he seems so clueless about such a well-known concept.

 

30.  Marshall claims he’s found certain “practical principles” to be helpful. (26)  Could be, but how that’s relevant to this discussion is left a mystery.

 

31.  Marshall says, “Locate yourself rightly on a map, and you begin to find your way.” (26)  What an odd metaphor!  Maps and terrain are both physical objects, readily susceptible to independent, empirical verification.  How is that comparable to “the evidence of things unseen”?

 

Interestingly, there was a news report recently about a woman using a GPS in her car.  The GPS told her to turn left, so she did and drove into a pond.  I think maybe there’s a moral in there for Marshall to contemplate!

 

32.  Dawkins upbraids Behe for giving up too easily on naturalistic explanations of biological complexity.  Marshall interprets that as Dawkins asking Behe to have the same kind of faith in naturalism that Pascal asks his readers to have in God.  (26)  

 

That seems a very unfortunate comparison.  It turns out, there is concrete evidence showing that Dawkins was right to ask Behe to have faith, because a gap that Behe claimed could never be filled actually was filled.  (Google ERV and Behe and Vpu for the details.  They’re actually pretty funny.  Behe ends up looking like a complete ID-iot.)  In sharp contrast, however, Marshall provides no concrete evidence showing that Pascal was right to ask his readers for faith.  

 

33.  Marshall hints that some atheistic arguments may be self-refuting: “Some atheists seem to think a simple evolutionary ‘bash’ to the head will shake the religious nonsense out of our skulls, without stopping to think what harm the blow may do their own theories.”  Marshall cites Dawkins’ discussion of “misfiring,” such as the one that cheers us in the chastened reconciliation at the end of Romeo and Juliet.  Marshall then plaintively asks:  “But if there is a ‘misfiring,’ there must also be a proper firing, a normative working of the mind.  Is this an error on Dawkins’s part, or can the function of our brains be described in terms of purpose?” (27)  

 

Marshall’s argument seems hopelessly garbled.  First, Dawkins was talking about general rules of thumb.  Such rules should work in many situations, but there is no requirement at all that they work all the time.  So the “misfiring” in this case is not a problem for evolutionary theory at all, and Marshall simply looks clueless for implying that it is.  Second, Dawkins’ discussion focused on instinctive behaviors whose value is measured by the objective standard of survival.  Marshall’s attempt to divert that into a philosophical discussion of “mind,” where there doesn’t appear to be any objective standard at all, seems highly dubious, if not completely nonsensical.  Finally, Dawkins’ discussion was clearly focused on function, while Marshall’s argument added what is arguably a completely extraneous element, i.e., purpose.  In short, Marshall’s argument looks an awful lot like a straw man argument.  Marshall’s complaint here doesn’t seem to expose any real problem in Dawkins’ argument, rather it seems to expose a problem in Marshall’s critical thinking skills.

 

34.  Marshall compounds his error by claiming, “If [the function of our brains] can’t be described in terms of purpose, we’re all in trouble.  If we reduce art and morality to Darwinian mechanisms, why not science and math as well?” (27)

 

Marshall’s argument here seems like gibberish too.  First, why do our brains need to be described in terms of purpose?  Marshall never says.  Second, what relevance does Marshall’s second sentence have to the first sentence?  He seems pretty vague about that too.  Third, Marshall needs to read TGD more carefully.  Dawkins doesn’t claim that art can be reduced to Darwinian mechanisms.   Fourth, Marshall seems to be improperly conflating function and purpose again.  Finally, note the dissimilarity between the objects being compared.  Art and morality both seem to depend to a large extent on relatively subjective judgments, while science and math do not, at least not to the same extent.  So Marshall seems to be comparing apples to oranges here.  If Marshall wants to talk about a mind misfiring, I can give him a suggestion on where to find a good subject!

 

35.  Marshall’s next argument seems to suggest that if our ability to count has Darwinian roots, then calculus must be a misfiring of mental faculties. (27)  What the heck does that even mean?  It looks like incomprehensible gibberish.

 

36.  Marshall says “The skeptic’s historical views may not derive from careful and honest study – even at second or third hand – of the evidence.” (28)  

 

Well, yeah, I guess that’s possible for skeptics, but I think it’s equally possible for theists.  In fact, judging from the number of obvious falsehoods in Marshall’s own book (see Section I), I think it would be fair to use his own book as evidence on that point.  Marshall’s idle speculation about what skeptics *may* do is not really a helpful contribution to the debate.  Instead of living in a dream world, Marshall should focus on what skeptics *actually* do.

 

37.  Marshall continues, “Too many ‘facts’ on which key arguments are based may be gleaned off the Internet or from an elite corps of fellow skeptics operating outside their specialties, and accepted too quickly.” (28-29)

 

Again, this idle speculation about what *may* happen is not really a helpful contribution to the debate.  Marshall should focus on what actually *did* happen.  Second, before Marshall criticizes anyone for relying on Internet sources, he ought to check his own Internet sources.  Otherwise, he ends up looking not only foolish, but also hypocritical.

 

38.  Hilariously, after leveling a number of serious accusations against seven important historical figures (Freud, Kinsey, Mead, Ayn Rand, Haeckel, Galton, and Skinner), mostly without even a shred of documentation, Marshall’s very next paragraph claims that “Faith means, then, not believing poorly evidenced claims …” (30)  Honest to God, Marshall must be one of the shortest people in the whole world.  Even the most glaring inconsistencies seem to go right over his head.

 

39.  Marshall cites Augustine’s claim that faith must “precede” reason, because there are some truths that “we cannot yet grasp by reason – though one day we shall ….” (30)  But if faith must precede reason, then how can faith be based on reason?  Marshall’s citation to Augustine seems to damage Marshall’s argument more than it damages Dawkins’.

 

40.  Marshall confronts Dawkins’ claim that evos would abandon evo overnite if new evidence arose to dispute it by citing Karl Popper’s hypothesis that scientific paradigms are slow to change, even when evidence mounts against them. (30)  Unfortunately for Marshall, it wasn’t Popper who said that, it was Thomas Kuhn.  Even more unfortunately for Marshall, his footnote isn’t to either Popper or Kuhn, rather it’s to Carl Sagan.  Anyone can screw up a reference, but Popper, Kuhn, and Sagan were three giants in their fields.  Screwing up three such prominent figures in a single cite seems to indicate a rather remarkable degree of incompetence, which is especially noteworthy, given Marshall’s frequent complaints about Dawkins’ sources.

 

BTW, Dawkins may have been exaggerating a bit with the word “overnite,” but the scientific consensus can indeed change very rapidly when new evidence is discovered, just as Dawkins implies.  For example, Peter Mitchell’s hypothesis of chemiosmosis was vilified when it was first proposed, but within ten years it was widely accepted, and ten years after that, Mitchell was invited to Stockholm to receive a Nobel Prize. What does Marshall have to say about that?

 

And few if any American geologists accepted plate tectonics up until the 1960s, but after the American space program produced reliable measurements showing that the continents did indeed move, probably the only organizations rejecting plate tectonics were young-Earth creationists.  Blind faith seems to make believers unusually resistant to data.  I wonder why Marshall didn’t discuss that example in his book.

 

41.  Marshall says, “If Christianity accepts the need for evidence, what sort of evidence does it offer?  It would be as unreasonable to demand that all the evidence conform to the scientific method as that your wife prove she is faithful mathematically.” (30)  Well, that may be, but the fact remains that scientific evidence is widely considered to be one of the most reliable kinds of evidence, and Marshall’s failure to cite much if any of it doesn’t make Christian beliefs seem very reliable.  Also, Marshall’s claim seems a bit evasive, like he’s tacitly conceding, without actually saying it openly, that Dawkins is right about the absence of the kind of evidence that Dawkins is talking about.

 

42.  Marshall says that it’s reasonable to expect a different sort of evidence appealing to different aspects of our humanity, because Jesus said, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (30)  Marshall’s argument makes no sense whatsoever.  It seems to rely more on pious posturing than on rational analysis.

 

43.  Marshall says he missed the Sunday school lesson where children are taught that unquestioning faith is a virtue.  (32)  I understand that both the Institute for Creation Research and Answers-in-Genesis provide speakers on a regular basis to Christian organizations.  I know for sure that some of the presentations occur on Sunday, because I’ve been to a couple.  Maybe Marshall ought to look into it.

 

44.  Marshall implies he will provide “evidence that seems to contradict [evolution].”  I wonder if he meant in another book.  It sure wasn’t in this book.

 

45.  Marshall confronts Dawkins’ claim that “Fundamentalists know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief. … The book is true, and if evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out, not the book.”  Marshall responds, saying that many fundies *say* they came to believe through reasoning.  (Emphasis in original.) 

 

Yeah, well, people can make all sorts of claims, but that doesn’t mean the claims are true.  (See Section I.)  Marshall’s argument here essentially boils down to “X said it, I believe it, and that’s that.”  It sounds a lot like the blind faith he says Christians don’t rely on.

 

46.  Marshall continues, citing believers who *claim* their beliefs are based on reason and evidence, but he fails to provide enough details about the alleged evidence to establish its reliability. (32-33)  Once again, Marshall’s argument essentially boils down to “X said it, I believe it, and that’s that.”  It sounds a lot like Marshall is relying on the kind of blind faith he says Christians don’t rely on.  Isn’t that strange!

 

47.  Marshall continues, noting Dawkins’ lack of supporting citations and concluding that “it appears that Dawkins has found a quicker solution than throwing evidence out – never reading it.”  (33) 

 

That’s pretty funny coming from Marshall, with his own extensive list of undocumented (and frequently completely false) claims.  That seems quite hypocritical, especially in this case, where there is ample evidence supporting Dawkins’ claim.

 

William Dembski, perhaps the leading ID-proponent in the world, proclaimed he would never change his mind, no matter what the evidence.  Michael Behe, perhaps the leading ID scientist in the world, publicly defended a high school science textbook that taught students to follow the Bible and ignore contrary scientific evidence.  Ken Ham, Henry Morris, Kurt Wise, are all prominent (or former) figures who support various ID proposals, and all of them have made similar statements.  All five of those individuals are well-known in the evangelical community, so it seems like it’s actually Marshall who “has found a quicker solution than throwing evidence out – never reading it.”

 

Marshall closes Chapter 1 with an unctuous discussion about the importance of being open to evidence.  If you want to see how open-minded Marshall really is, just read the Weird Science section, above.  Or read Section I.  When Marshall was challenged about the accuracy of some of those demonstrably false quotations and factual statements, did Marshall correct them?  No, he did not.  So how is that “open-minded”?

 

 

Chapter 2: Are Scientists Too “Bright” to Believe in God? (pp. 35-50)

 

In this chapter, Marshall confronts claims that Christianity discourages the attempt to understand the natural world and that modern scientists are unlikely to believe in God.  He also asks why modern scientists are unlikely to believe in God and whether that makes atheism more likely to be true.  It’s not the most absurd chapter in the book.  In fact, Marshall’s brief discussion of the effect that various Chinese religions had on science was pretty interesting. (37) But unfortunately, the nuanced approach that Marshall takes on that multifaceted topic is noticeably absent in most of the rest of the book.

 

1.  Marshall says, “In the last chapter, we saw that Christians seldom if ever see it as a “virtue not to understand.”  (37) 

 

That’s obviously an unwarranted conclusion.  Christianity probably claims over two billion adherents over the past two millennia.  Marshall’s handful of sources, some of which could easily be read as seriously undermining his position, hardly justify his sweeping generalization.

 

2.  Marshall asks, “If the Bible teaches us to close our eyes to natural wonder, why did modern science arise among a church-educated elite steeped in such anti-intellectualism?” (37)

 

Marshall’s argument focuses on the wrong issue.  The real issue is not whether the Bible teaches us to close our eyes to *all* natural wonder, but whether it teaches us to limit our investigations into sensitive areas.  It’s common knowledge that the Bible has been cited to justify limiting or disregarding scientific investigations or teaching about the results of such investigations in such areas as heliocentrism, evolution in general, and human evolution in particular.  Marshall’s stubborn failure to acknowledge the obvious here can’t help but make one suspicious about the rest of his arguments.

 

3.  Marshall also fails to address what seems a very obvious question.  If the Bible was as important an influence in the rise of science as Marshall seems to think, then why did it apparently take 1543 years for that influence to make itself felt?  (I think that’s the earliest example of “Christian science” that Marshall identifies.)  Marshall seems intent on ignoring that elephant in the living room.

 

4.  Marshall criticizes Wilson for marking “Voltaire as a central figure [of the Enlightenment] in France,” because “Voltaire wasn’t a scientist, and did little to help science.” (38)  Marshall’s criticism is simply silly, implying that every single one of the important figures in the Enlightenment in France was a scientist.

 

5.  Furthermore, Marshall complains in Chapter 4 about what he sees as the unfair claim that ID-proponents aren’t really “scientists.”  That complaint implies that Marshall has a set of guidelines in mind for who qualifies and who doesn’t qualify as a scientist.  Unfortunately, he never shares them with his readers.  That’s a serious problem for his complaint there, and it’s also a serious problem for his Voltaire argument.  If it’s unfair for evos to claim that ID-proponents aren’t scientists, then why is it fair for Marshall to claim that Voltaire wasn’t a scientist?  Marshall never even addresses, much less resolves, that obvious question.

 

6 - 12.  Marshall asks whether there are any nonlogical reasons why American scientists would be less likely to believe in God, and then provides seven possibilities:  hostility toward religion, self-imposed limitations, bias against miracles, doubt instead of discernment, faulty information, presumption, and ignorance. (42-47)  

 

While those explanations may be hypothetically possible, Marshall provides hardly even a scrap of credible evidence that they are in fact correct, and so virtually his entire argument seems to be just one long argument from speculation, which kind of makes one wonder if that’s also what his argument for God boils down to.

 

13.  In addition to being so speculative as to be almost completely worthless, Marshall’s “seven sins” argument has some other, serious problems too.

 

Regarding the first of his seven nonlogical possibilities, i.e., hostility toward religion, Marshall quotes Smith: “The modern university … is actively hostile to [religion.]” (42)  

 

Really?  Does that include such major universities as Notre Dame (Catholic), Baylor (Baptist), Liberty (Baptist), Brigham Young (Mormon), SMU (Methodist), Georgetown (Catholic), Boston College (Catholic), all five of the Loyolas (Catholic, Catholic, Catholic, Catholic, and Catholic), and the hundreds of seminaries?  Does it include the schools with active branches of the Campus Crusade for Christ or other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and/or Buddhist student organizations?  Does it include the schools with school chapels?

 

The whining that Marshall engages in, desperately trying to convince everyone of his status as victim – or should I say “martyr” – makes him look rather pathetic.

 

14.  Marshall’s “hostility toward religion” argument may also be a double-edged sword.  If I were as ignorant as Marshall seems to be, I could argue, perhaps with even more justification than Marshall can muster, that Christian universities are hostile to atheism.  Instead of his pointless speculations about motives, Marshall would be much better off if he focused on real evidence.  Perhaps he focuses on motives precisely because there is so little real evidence for his case.

 

15.  Marshall tries to support his argument by citing Harris’ statement that “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.” 

 

Marshall’s argument seems highly inappropriate.  Harris’ statement referred to people who advocate violence, like Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki.  Marshall’s attempt to apply that argument to an academic environment seems more than a bit strained. 

 

But if Marshall is foolish enough to pursue that argument, then it might be interesting to count the number of Harris’ books in university libraries and then compare that to the number of Bibles and other books in the libraries about religious leaders like Jesus Christ who advocated slaughtering people who believed this or that proposition.  If Marshall thinks that comparison is going to work out in his favor, then he really is as big a fool as the arguments in his book make him out to be.

 

16.  Regarding the second of his seven nonlogical reasons why American scientists would be less likely to believe in God, i.e., “self-imposed limitations,” Marshall argues that they “must” assume that “God does not spike the petri dish,” which may instill a habit which may become hard to break. (45) 

 

Two obvious problems with this argument.  First, it seems inconsistent with the fact that thousands of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scientists apparently employ the same approach.  How does Marshall resolve that apparent inconsistency?  Simple.  He just ignores it. 

 

Second, and perhaps more important, Marshall’s argument is probably just factually incorrect.  Scientists probably don’t *assume* that God doesn’t spike the petri dish, rather they recognize the simple fact that there is no credible evidence of God spiking petri dishes.  In other words, we’re probably not talking about an assumption, but about an inference; and not just any inference, but one based on very, very, very long experience.  There is a huge difference between an assumption and an inference.  Marshall’s failure to recognize the difference indicates that he doesn’t have the faintest idea of what he’s talking about.

 

17.  Regarding the third of his seven nonlogical reasons why American scientists would be less likely to believe in God, i.e., “bias against miracles,” Marshall argues that, “Miracles are a province of history, not science.” (45)  

 

Marshall seems to be implying that scientists don’t investigate historical occurrences, but thousands of forensic scientists, among many other kinds of scientists, would be mighty surprised to hear that!  Investigating historical events is actually, entirely routine in science.  So once again, Marshall seems not to have the faintest idea of what he’s talking about.

 

18.  Regarding the alleged difference between historical and scientific arguments, Marshall says that “it may be easier for some scientists … to say, ‘Prove it to me scientifically, or I won’t believe!’” (45)

 

If Marshall is claiming that scientists don’t accept historical arguments, that’s a pretty radical accusation.  I have a science degree myself, and I know a lot of other people with science degrees, and I’m not aware that any of them doubt that George Washington was the first American president, for example.  So Marshall’s argument, unsupported, as usual, by any meaningful, relevant evidence, seems pretty dubious. 

 

19.  Regarding the fourth of his seven nonlogical reasons why American scientists would be less likely to believe in God, i.e., “doubt instead of discernment,” Marshall says, “Scientists are rightly offended by the arbitrary and silly nature of many miracle reports.”  Marshall argues that what the skeptics are actually rejecting is magic, and that the miracles of the Bible are actually different, but he provides no credible evidence whatsoever in support of his argument.  It looks like Marshall is just playing word games again.  One man’s magic is another man’s miracle.  What makes Marshall think he’s equipped to tell the difference?  Special pleading? 

 

The bottom-line here seems to be that many miracle reports are simply stupid, and if that’s the case, then it doesn’t seem irrational for someone to be pretty skeptical about them and to withhold belief until credible evidence is produced to establish their reliability.

 

20.  Marshall also argues that, “miracles come in response to requests.” (46)  This seems inconsistent with Marshall’s earlier claim that “[God’s] not a lap dog who comes when called.” (31)

 

21.  Marshall also says that “miracles actually affirm the dignity and reasonableness of natural law.” (46)  What the heck does that even mean?  Marshall’s pious platitudes seem aimed more at pandering than at rational analysis.

 

22.  Marshall’s “doubt instead of discernment” argument also looks like another double-edged sword.  I wonder if Marshall would accept the possibility that “gullibility instead of discernment” could be the reason that believers are more likely than scientists to believe in miracles.

 

23.  Regarding the fifth of his seven nonlogical reasons why American scientists would be less likely to believe in God, i.e., “faulty information,” (46) Marshall seems to concede that some religious education includes obviously wrong statements about science, and then he adds, “I don’t want to be too hard on pastors or parents who make such mistakes.  No one owns a crystal-clear picture of reality.”  Yeah, I guess it’s only “post-Christian thinkers” like Marx, Engels, Comte, Freud, Haeckel, Nietzsche, Sartre, Skinner, Wells, Rorty, and Said that get held to such an unreasonable standard. (43)  Marshall’s generosity to foolish believers seems to be remarkably different from the way he treats non-believers.  That seems biased.

 

24.  Regarding the sixth nonlogical reason why American scientists would be less likely to believe in God, i.e., “presumption,” Marshall implies that it might be because few scientists take the time to become experts on God, and he expresses support for a Catholic clergyman who complained about Einstein expressing his personal doubt about the existence of God. (46-47)

 

What the heck is Marshall’s point here?  Is he trying to say that scientists who aren’t experts on God should just go ahead and profess belief?  That looks like a rather naked appeal to blind faith.  Is he trying to say we shouldn’t pay any attention to the surveys that seem to show a lack of belief among eminent American and British scientists?  Well, if we shouldn’t pay any attention to surveys, then why does Marshall himself cite unspecified surveys showing the relatively greater prevalence of belief among Asians?  And is it Marshall’s contention that Jesus reveals himself only to experts?  Is that really what mainstream Christian theology holds?  Marshall’s argument here seems utterly bizarre.

 

25.  Another problem with Marshall’s argument is that he never defines what it means to be an “expert on God.”  I’m guessing that Marshall includes himself in the select group of “experts.”  That seems pretty arrogant, especially in light of all of the obvious blunders and falsehoods in his book.

 

26.  Finally, another problem with Marshall’s argument is that he seems to be forgetting what his own source, Smith, says about how “religious studies professionals fully share the hostility of the university towards religion.” (49)  In other words, the experts, i.e., all those “religious studies professionals,” apparently agree more with Dawkins than with Marshall.  If Marshall is going to rely on arguments to authority, then how does he justify ignoring all those religious studies professionals?

 

27.  Marshall’s last nonlogical reason for why American scientists might be less likely to believe in God is “ignorance.” Marshall implies that people who don’t know what they’re talking about often make mistakes. (47)  

 

Wow.  Marshall’s keen insight into human behavior is really impressive.  People who don’t know what they’re talking about often make mistakes.  Wow.

 

Now that Marshall has finally arrived at that penetrating insight, maybe he can do something about all the mistakes in his own book.  Before Marshall starts criticizing what may be largely if not purely speculative ignorance, perhaps he ought to do something about his own, very real ignorance.

 

28.  Marshall says Augustine read the Bible and deduced that time came into being with the universe, that Hawking credited Augustine as being the first to draw that conclusion, and then concluded that “In this and other cases, twentieth-century science has caught up with fourth-century theology.” (49)

 

Marshall’s cockiness might seem more justifiable if Augustine hadn’t also argued that the Bible showed that the southern hemisphere must be entirely unpopulated.  I wonder why Marshall neglected to mention that little bit.  Gee, maybe theologians’ Bible-based guesses aren’t all that reliable after all.  Maybe we ought to keep doing science in hopes of correcting their antipodean and other obvious errors.

 

29.  It’s also interesting to note that Marshall portrays science as “catching up” with theologians.  That seems a dubious view.  Those theologians’ proposals seem to be more in the nature of speculative guesses, while the proposals of modern science seem to be more in the nature of logical conclusions derived from empirically testable, reproducible evidence.  Is Marshall really so clueless as to imply that the two sets of proposals are equivalent, merely because they came to the same conclusion?

 

Marshall’s apparent admiration for theologians’ correct guesses seems inappropriate, like expressing admiration for the cleverness of the dart-tossing chimp at the “Wall Street Journal” who regularly outperformed professional stock analysts over the past couple of decades.  (Actually, the chimp was replaced a while back with a computer, but the principle is still the same.)  In fact, Marshall’s apparent admiration for Augustine’s naïve speculations seems like a tacit endorsement of the sort of irrational, evidence-free, blind faith that Marshall argued against in Chapter One.  How quickly Marshall seems to have forgotten that!

 

 

Chapter 3: Does Evolution Make God Redundant? (pp. 51-60)

 

1.  In the very first sentence of text, Marshall implies that the arguments for evolution that Jonathan Wells criticizes in “Icons of Evolution” were in fact bad. (51)  Naturally, Marshall provides no rational discussion to support that.  It looks like an appeal to blind faith.

 

2.  Marshall says Darwin’s “Origin” is a brilliant piece of intellectual literature and that it’s unfair for Christians to belittle Darwin. (53)  I can’t help but wonder why Marshall doesn’t apply that same standard to the renowned intellectuals he mowed down so callously in Chapters One and Two.  The inconsistency seems rather obvious.

 

And why are those Christians criticizing Darwin in the first place?  Perhaps Christianity isn’t as nurturing of science as Marshall would like to pretend. (76 and 189)  Or perhaps some Christians rely too much on blind faith.  Either way, those unfair Christians seem to undermine Marshall’s arguments a whole lot more than he seems willing to acknowledge.

 

3.  Marshall claims that “Darwin’s description of how natural selection keeps the species fit was a huge discovery ….” (53), implying that natural selection is the only factor involved.  So why did Marshall criticize Dawkins for saying pretty much the same thing in his critique of Behe’s “Edge of Evolution”?  Marshall’s inconsistency seems rather obvious.

 

4.  Marshall says, “But natural selection shares a quality in common with the gospel: it is true.” (53)  That’s interesting.  Many of the “bad arguments for evolution” Marshall mentioned at the start of the chapter were specifically about natural selection.  Why are arguments for natural selection apparently bad on page 51, but apparently not so bad on page 53?  The apparent inconsistency there seems more than a bit problematic. 

 

5.  Marshall says natural selection explains how, “…even when individual bunnies go to the wolves, rabbits in general are kept from going to the dogs.” (53)  Marshall doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about.  Scientists generally believe that the vast majority of species that have ever lived are now extinct.  The implication in Marshall’s statement that natural selection “in general” preserves species is highly misleading, if not utterly false.

 

6.  Marshall claims that young-Earth creationism (YEC) “denies the daily experience of scientists in many fields.” (54)  So does that mean that YEC relies on blind faith?  Isn’t YEC quite prevalent, and aren’t most YECs Christians?  How does Marshall explain what seems to be a very substantial portion of Christianity manifesting what seems to be a very substantial amount of blind faith, i.e., a belief held, as Dawkins put it, “in the teeth of evidence”?  Doesn’t that conflict with what Marshall said in Chapter One?

 

7.  Marshall also claims that the apparent conflict between science’s conclusion about an ancient earth and the Genesis account indicating a young earth is “easy” to resolve simply by looking at how Genesis was meant to be read. (54)  Marshall’s solution is “easy,” mostly because he simply ignores the vast YEC literature defending their interpretation of Genesis.

 

Another problem with Marshall’s statement is that it seems to rely an awful lot on special pleading.  Given the number of obvious blunders throughout his book, however, there doesn’t seem to be much justification for believing that Marshall actually has any particular expertise; and if he has no particular expertise, then his appeal to special pleading seems quite dubious.

 

8.  Marshall cites – apparently with approval – C.S. Lewis’ claim that “he knew Genesis was inspired simply because (unlike other ancient stories it resembles) it ‘achieves the idea of true Creation and a transcendent Creator.’” (55)  That looks like it has all the elements of a circular argument.  So not only does Marshall ignore evidence, he apparently also ignores the rules of logic.

 

9.  Marshall says, “The world has often quarreled with Genesis, and gotten the worst of it.”  Perhaps, but let’s not forget that science has also gotten the better of the Bible on some important issues.  Earth is ancient, not young; it is spherical, not flat; it circles the sun, not the other way around; and there are in fact people living in the southern hemisphere.  Marshall seems to gloss over those issues.

 

10.  Marshall follows up with some examples of how Genesis has gotten the better of the world.  Marshall says, “The Book of Beginnings says the universe came from nothing.  [And] the biblical idea of a cosmic origin has now been vindicated.” 

 

Well, that’s debatable.  First, the words “universe” and “nothing” are technical terms in this context, and “cosmic origin” could have a variety of different meanings as well.  Marshall’s failure to provide definitions for any of those terms makes his argument look pretty dubious.  Second, whatever “cosmic origin” may mean in science, Marshall fails to document that it does in fact comport with even a majority, much less a universal, view of what Genesis means.  Again, Marshall seems to be simply ignoring the abundant, contrary literature on this point from the young-Earth side.  Third, Landon Hedrick points out, “At the very least, the potentiality for the universe preceded the physical world - and that is not ‘sheer nothing’ as Aquinas would point out. So whatever we mean when we say that the universe ‘came from nothing,’ we cannot mean *sheer nothing*.”

 

11.  Marshall says “people of all races on earth share 99.9 percent of their DNA,” and concludes from that that Moses was right when he said that “All humanity came from one man and one woman.” (55)  But Marshall’s evidence does not logically lead to his conclusion.  Marshall’s evidence shows only that his conclusion is logically possible, not that it is logically necessary.  Logical possibilities alone are not necessarily very convincing.  After all, given my age, it is also logically possible that I killed JFK, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.

 

12.  Marshall says that “[In contrast to what Moses said,] Greek philosophers, Gnostics, Hindus, the Nation of Islam, and some Social Darwinists said no, people are a mixture of free and slave, of spiritual, psychic, and physical, different parts of the body of Brahma, or separately evolved people.” 

 

The lack of citations for any of that makes the factual basis for Marshall’s argument seem a bit dubious, and the lack of specifics makes it impossible to verify the soundness of his logic.  The lack of specifics makes Marshall’s argument seem more like pious pandering, and not an actual, rational argument.  We’ll see a lot more of this kind of pious pandering when Marshall gets to the issues of eugenics and Social Darwinism.

 

13.  According to Marshall, “Karl Marx convinced a third of the world … that money was the real problem.” (55)  Marshall’s statement about Marx is not only highly dubious – in fact, I think it’s a flat out lie -- its alleged conflict with Genesis is also pretty murky.  Marshall’s argument seems to be both false and pointless. Is that supposed to impress us with the rationality of Christian apologetics?

 

14.  Marshall also claims that, “Communism then proved conclusively that people can hate one another in a cashless society.” (55)  Again, the accuracy of Marshall’s factual claim is not supported by any citation to credible evidence, plus its alleged conflict with Genesis is also pretty murky. 

 

15.  Marshall says, “Adam called Eve ‘bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh;’” and then comments, “Attempts to mold corporate Amazons or to deny the humanity of women (or men) have proved disappointing.”

 

That seems to be nothing but pious gibberish.  What “attempts to mold corporate Amazons” is Marshall even talking about?  Is Marshall advocating the more traditional idea that women be kept barefoot and pregnant?  If so, does he really think there weren’t any disappointments in that scheme?  And what “attempts to deny the humanity of women (or men)” is Marshall talking about?  Is he talking about the Catholic Church’s refusal to ordain women?  If so, why does he blame that on “the world,” rather than on Christianity?  And what relevance does either part of Marshall’s second sentence have to his first sentence?  Marshall’s argument looks like empty propaganda.

 

16.  Marshall seems enormously impressed by the fact that Augustine and Origin believed that “time began with the universe.” But cosmologists are not yet on agreement on this point, so Marshall’s cries of triumph seem a bit premature, to say the least.

 

17.  Marshall is also proud of the fact that Genesis “warns against pride,” and “shows how love of knowledge can lead to loss of innocence.” (55)

 

Well, first of all, neither lesson is particularly noteworthy, so Marshall seems to be trying to make a mountain out of a pretty puny molehill here.  Second, if Marshall really wants to insist that Christianity emphasizes the need for rationality, then he should probably not be highlighting the Bible’s warning against “love of knowledge.”  That seems a bit inconsistent, and there’s enough of that in Marshall’s book already.

 

18.  Marshall says, “One could write a history of the human race, utilizing the deepest psychological and anthropological insights, based on the first three chapters of Genesis.” (55-56) 

 

I wonder how Marshall knows that.  Does he have a substantial background in psychology?  If not, then what qualifications does he have for making such a bold proclamation?  Sheer arrogance?

 

And if Genesis was so prescient in its portrayal of “deep psychological insights,” then why were Christians so shocked near the turn of the 20^th century by Freud’s revolutionary hypothesis about the importance of the unconscious?  Why were Skinner’s pioneering experiments in operant conditioning so shocking?  Why was Piaget’s work on early childhood development viewed as groundbreaking?  Why were the results of Stanley Milgram’s famous experiments so shocking to the Christians of his day?  And how did Freudian-trained psychotherapists manage to propose ideas about behavioral economics that were so new and so important that they earned their discoverers Nobel Prizes in the 21^st century?  There seem to be a great many problems for Marshall’s argument.  Perhaps he’s not really as knowledgeable about psychology as he’s pretending.

 

19.  Marshall says that “being honest doesn’t mean looking only at one side of a question.” (56)  It’s too bad Marshall doesn’t heed this maxim a bit more rigorously himself.  Many of Marshall’s arguments, e.g., about the young-Earth issue, eugenics, social Darwinism, etc., etc., etc., seem to depend quite heavily on Marshall looking at only one side of the question.

 

20.  Marshall apparently accepts the hypothesis of common descent, partly because “the bodies of man and ape do share many common structures.” (57)  Marshall is relying here on the argument from homologous structures, which is interesting, because that’s one of the “icons of evolution” that Wells derided.  Since Marshall implies in the very first sentence of the chapter that Wells’ arguments in “Icons,” presumably including the argument *against* homologous structures, are valid, it’s surprising to see Marshall apparently reversing himself just six pages later. 

 

21.  Marshall says, “Stark shows that in some ways, opposition between evolution and Christianity was “drummed up” by radical skeptics such as Huxley….” (58) 

 

There are some obvious problems with Marshall’s statement.  First, there’s no specific citation.  Since Marshall has been caught in so many falsehoods before, that’s worrisome.  Second, notice the apparent scapegoating of “radical skeptics,” while simply ignoring other actors.  Didn’t Marshall say just two pages earlier that “being honest doesn’t mean looking only at one side of a question”?  Third, it’s been a while since I read any of Stark’s books, but my recollection is that many of his statements about evolution were just simply stupid.  I wonder if that’s what made him so appealing to Marshall.

 

22.  Marshall closes this bizarre little chapter by claiming that evolution allows some people to hear God’s voice in “a new and more subtle way.” (59)  Presumably, Marshall thinks that’s a good thing.  However, in a later chapter, Marshall discusses the way that Hitler apparently listened to God’s voice in “a new and more subtle way.”  Apparently Marshall doesn’t think that was such a good thing.  But that raises a question:  How does Marshall tell objectively whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing to listen to God’s voice in new ways?  Marshall describes no rigorous method for making that determination, which makes his argument look like just an empty, pious platitude.

Chapter 4: Some Riddles of Evolution (pp. 61-78)

 

This chapter’s arguments impugning evolution make it the dumbest chapter in the book in my view, though Chapter One, with its discussion of blind faith, and Chapter Eleven, with its discussion of the Holocaust, are both strong competitors.  The chapter seems to be almost entirely pointless, since the basic theory of biological evolution seems entirely compatible with mainstream Christianity.  So why Marshall chose to blunder into a field that he seems to know almost nothing about seems a mystery.

 

Many of the specifically scientific arguments in this chapter were so dumb, I thought they should be highlighted in a separate section, so those dumb arguments are in Section V, Weird Science.  But there are plenty of other dumb arguments about other topics.  Those are listed below.

 

1.  Marshall says that, at first glance, Darwin’s theory seems to fit the pattern of evidence better than Genesis does.  (61)  Marshall seems to be implying that first appearances are deceiving in this case, but he provides no credible evidence for believing that, so his statement here appears to be just one more example of him impugning evolution in order to pander to those who reject evolution.

 

2.  Marshall indicates that generally the best reason for laymen to accept a proposal about a complicated topic like evolution is that the acknowledged experts in that area accept it, but then he says that trust can be fragile and that “any hint” of bias or that scientists seem to be merely defending territory rather than seeking truth can undermine confidence in a theory.  (62) 

 

There are some serious problems with Marshall’s argument here.  First, he uses an obviously unreasonable standard, i.e., that “any hint” of bias is enough to undermine trust.  When literally hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world agree, why should a “hint” of what a clueless dilettante considers to be questionable behavior be considered justification for anything?  Second, Marshall seems to apply his standard in a very biased way.  There is little, if any, discussion of the arguably much more serious territory-defending behavior that Christians engage in.  Strangely, that seems not to be much of a concern for Marshall.  So Marshall’s argument here seems to rest mostly on ignorance and bias, not on reason.

 

3.  Marshall claims that irreducible complexity (IC) is an Intelligent Design concept. (62)  In reality, however, the concept now known as “irreducible complexity” was described many decades ago by H.J. Mueller, an evolutionist.  ID-proponents use IC in their misguided attacks on evolution, but that doesn’t make it an ID concept.  In fact, ID seems to be a religious program with little or no scientific content.  It seems to be based almost entirely on ignorance.  I wonder if that’s what makes it so attractive to Marshall.

 

4.  Marshall says, “Theories, like deer, need predators to keep fit.” (62) Really?  Does heliocentrism really need geocentrism to “keep fit”?  Does the spherical Earth theory really need flat-Earthism to “keep fit”?  Marshall’s inanity here seems to be just another attempt to pander to readers who reject evolution.

 

5.  Marshall also implies that Darwin would not be opposed to creationist ideas. (63)  But in reality, Darwin thought creationism was bunk, just as today’s scientists do, and you can read Darwin’s criticism right where Dawkins implied it would be.  Marshall apparently didn’t bother reading the chapter in “Origin” that Dawkins cited.  I guess he thought that just making stuff up out of thin air would be a lot easier.

 

6.  Marshall complains that in the evo-creato debate, “many on both sides … seem to go out of their way to insult opponents.” (63)  Yes, that’s certainly true, and Marshall himself is a good example of someone who does that pretty regularly.

 

7.  Discussing mainstream science’s rejection of ID, Marshall says, “A lot of social posturing goes on here in the name of science.” (63)  Marshall apparently thinks that the discrimination against ID-proponents is largely, if not exclusively, based on social justifications, but unfortunately Marshall provides no definition of what “social” means in this context, nor does he explain why such justifications, whatever they may be, are improper.  Science is obviously a social activity, so why does Marshall imply that it is inappropriate to use sociological factors in determining who is actually in the social group and who isn’t?  Marshall’s argument seems to make no sense whatsoever.

 

8.  Marshall also relies on carefully cherry-picked evidence in making his “sociological” case.  He takes care to describe Dennett’s and Dawkins’ “sociological” responses to evo-doubter Berlinski’s 1996 article in Commentary, but neglects to describe the much more numerous, science-based responses.  Cherry-picking evidence like that looks pretty biased.

 

9.  Marshall says, Dawkins “seems to resent the idea of a challenge [from ID]” (63), but the evidence that Marshall cites to document Dawkins’ alleged resentment is an entirely routine discussion of an obvious error in logic that ID-proponents seem to make routinely.  If pointing out errors in logic constitutes evidence of “resentment,” then rational people everywhere are in a lot of trouble!  Marshall’s argument seems utterly stupid.

 

The error in logic that Dawkins was discussing relates to the misuse of irreducible complexity in trying to prove the validity of ID.  See the details in Section I, in the discussion of Marshall’s false accusation that Dawkins contradicted himself in claiming that the search for “irreducible complexity” (IC) is both scientific and unscientific.

 

10.  Regarding that same argument, Marshall says that quoting Darwin is “always a safe way to proceed.” (63)  But that conflicts with Marshall’s inane argument (discussed in Section V) just one page earlier about Darwin’s alleged failure regarding mutations.  Marshall appears to be so clueless that he can’t keep his arguments straight even for just two consecutive pages.

 

11.  Marshall dredges up the Sternberg martyrdom story again. (64)  Marshall says, “In 2006, the U.S. House Committee on Government took up the case ….”  That’s highly misleading, if not downright false.  It was actually a single member of Congress, who happened to be a member of that committee, but it was not the committee itself.  This kind of sloppiness occurs throughout the book and shows that Marshall simply can’t be trusted to tell the truth.

 

12.  The phrase “took up” is also misleading.  Apparently the only thing that happened was that a single member of Congress signed a letter supporting Sternberg before the investigation (by a separate office) was even close to being completed.  I guess some politicians, like some apologists, don’t need complete evidence before jumping to politically convenient conclusions.  If Marshall finds “social posturing” so objectionable (63), I wonder how that little travesty of justice managed to escape his notice.

 

And another thing that’s pretty funny about Marshall’s pitiful weeping and wailing about poor little Sternberg is that his source for all of this appears to be a website edited by a birther.  That says something about the “research” Marshall did for his book.  A birther-edited website.  O.M.G.

 

13.  Marshall claims that rumors were started about Sternberg.  Well, so what?  I hope Marshall doesn’t think it’s an actionable offense to start a rumor about someone, or else pretty much everyone in America is going to go to jail, and given the number of falsehoods in his own book, Marshall might be the first to go!  Marshall seems to be trying desperately to make a mountain out of what looks like a really, really tiny molehill.  I wonder if it’s because he doesn’t have very much legitimate evidence.

 

14.  One of the oh so offensive “rumors” was that Sternberg was a “fundamentalist.”  I don’t know why Marshall would find that objectionable.  In some circumstances, employers are legally required to accommodate the religious views and practices of employees.  Obviously, employers can’t know if they have to make such accommodations, unless they make some attempt to find out about the employee’s religious views.  As Marshall himself indicates (42), Sternberg’s article raised the possibility that religious issues might be in play, so it seems pretty reasonable for his employer to take steps to investigate further.  Marshall cites no credible evidence at all showing that what the employer did in this case was even remotely objectionable.  His argument seems based largely on anti-evolution bias, not reason.

 

15.  Marshall cites an apparently anti-Sternberg (actually it’s more like an anti-creationist) e-mail received by the Smithsonian.  Again, so what?  Why should the Smithsonian be blamed for what *someone else* said?  Under Marshall’s bizarre view, I guess someone injured by a mail-bomb is also at fault for having *received* the mail-bomb.  Marshall’s argument doesn’t make any sense at all.

 

16.  Marshall claims Meyer has a “doctorate in related research from Cambridge.” (64)  That’s highly misleading.  Meyer’s doctorate is in philosophy of science, not in science itself.  Big difference there.  Marshall’s ambiguous statement seems deliberately calculated to mislead readers about Meyer’s scientific credentials.

 

17.  Continuing with his “social posturing” argument, Marshall says that “Yockey … tries to turn the tables on the Dawkins crowd.” (65) Marshall quotes from Yockey’s e-mail to Talk.Origins, in which Yockey expresses doubt about the “pre-biotic soup” hypothesis.  Marshall implies in his first paragraph that Yockey is criticizing evolution.  Two paragraphs later, Marshall says, “[Yockey] pointed out that his argument applies only to the origin of life, not evolution.”  Hilarious.  Marshall can’t keep his arguments straight even for just three consecutive paragraphs.

 

18 - 19.  Marshall concludes that “Therefore (Yockey doesn’t suffer fools gladly), Dawkins and his ilk were the real religious fanatics.” (65)  

 

Three huge problems here.  First, as pointed out in Section One, Yockey’s e-mail does not even mention Dawkins.  Marshall simply made that part up out of thin air.  Second, nor does Yockey address any position on which Dawkins has taken a definite stance.  Anyone who knows anything about Dawkins knows that he hasn’t taken a firm stance in favor of any of the various competing hypotheses for the origin of life on Earth.  In fact, on more than one occasion he’s even stated that it’s entirely possible (though unlikely) that aliens from outer space are responsible for bringing the first life forms to Earth.  Marshall’s attempt to use Yockey’s e-mail to attack Dawkins simply looks dishonest. 

 

Finally, it’s interesting to note the form of Marshall’s argument here.  Marshall’s argument basically goes like this:  1) Dawkins said X; 2) Yockey said Y; therefore 3) Dawkins must be wrong.  Notice that Marshall presents no real evidence against X and no real evidence for Y.  His whole argument basically amounts to, “Yockey said it, I believe it, and that’s that.”  The stupidity is obvious.  How in God’s name can Dr. Paul Griffiths, from the Duke Divinity School, endorse such a stupid argument?

 

20.  Marshall cites, apparently with approval, Bohm’s definition of science as “openness to evidence.” (66)  Marshall apparently wants to use Bohm’s definition to criticize science for not being more open to the intelligent design fraud being promoted by Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and the other con artists at the Dishonesty Institute. 

 

Marshall apparently has no clue about what “openness” means in science.  Science has long been defined, at least in part, by the particular way in which it manifests its “openness to evidence.”  Specifically, scientific hypotheses must be open to empirical testing to the extent that if the test results contradict the hypothesis, then the hypothesis must be discarded or at least amended.  And that is exactly why ID does not qualify as science.  ID itself does not propose any meaningful hypotheses that can be tested empirically.  Evolution, on the other hand, does.  So it is ID, not evolution, that is not “open to evidence.”

 

In this case, the evidence is clear.  Unfortunately, Marshall just doesn’t seem open to it.

 

21.  Marshall sneers about Dawkins speculating about the probability of the origin of life “with the air of an heiress tossing gold coins to gutter snipes.” (66)  What a curious, petty little insult!  Marshall’s complaint here seems to manifest the same kind of mean-spiritedness that Judas displayed in complaining about Mary Magdalen’s generosity to Jesus.  In any case, both Jesus and the gutter snipes were probably grateful for the generosity.  Perhaps Marshall’s personal animosity toward Dawkins has blinded him to that.

 

22 - 24.  Marshall claims Berlinski wrote a “brilliant” article about the many problems involved in getting “life out of death.” 

 

a.  There’s reason to question Marshall’s qualifications for deciding what’s “brilliant” or not in this area.  The origin-of-life (OOL) area is highly technical.  In fact, Dawkins himself was quite explicit in explaining to his readers that he was not speaking as an expert in this particular field.  Marshall, of course, does not display any such humility, so I wonder what degrees or professional experience he has that make him such an expert that he can make that kind of judgment.  As Prof. Avalos pointed out regarding Marshall’s discussion of slavery, Marshall seems to just make stuff up.  It makes Marshall seem highly dishonest.

 

b.  In any case, the phrase “life out of death” is nonsensical in the OOL context, since it implies that life began before life began.

 

c.  And there’s reason to doubt Berlinski’s alleged brilliance too.  Judging from the snippet that Marshall quoted , Berlinski was concerned about whether a chemically reductive pre-biotic atmosphere really existed.  Why Berlinski is so conerened about that is a bit of a mystery, since chemically reductive *environments* could still be important factors, even if they didn’t exist specifically in the *atmosphere*.  Perhaps Berlinski was hoping that if he directed our attention specifically to the atmosphere that we’d forget to look anywhere else, but the fact is, chemically reductive environments exist both in outer space and probably undersea as well; and the amino acids that Stanley Miller’s famous experiment showed can develop in such environments could have developed there as easily as in a reductive *atmosphere.*

 

25.  Marshall claims “I am not making a ‘God of the gaps’ argument.” (68)  Three sentences later, he says, “Gaps in the power of a hypothesis to explain facts need to be filled, and some wounds in the surface of nature may be too large for anything but God.”  Well, Marshall may not be making a GOTG argument himself, but it sure looks like he’s saying it’s perfectly alright for others to make them.  That’s like the Christian pastors who tell their wingnut followers that there’s nothing wrong with killing abortion-providers, and then, when one of those wingnuts actually does kill an abortion-provider, the preacher gets all innocent and wide-eyed about how they never meant for anyone to get killed.  After all, we’re pro-life!  Mealy-mouthed weaseling like that is just contemptible IMHO.

 

26.  Marshall implies that there’s nothing wrong with God-of-the-gaps (GOTG) arguments. (68)  But Alister McGrath, whose academic credentials and accomplishments are vastly superior to Marshall’s fairly puny resume, said such arguments are inappropriate.  In “The Dawkins Delusion?” McGrath says that Dawkins’ criticism of those who worship the gaps is “clearly appropriate and valid;” and that Christian apologists who find God in the hidden recesses of the universe, beyond evaluation or investigation, are a real problem.  McGrath concludes that “the ‘God of the gaps’ approach … was misguided; it was a failed apologetic strategy from an earlier period in history that has now been rendered obsolete.” (29-30)

 

27.  Regarding GOTG arguments, Marshall says that “it doesn’t matter if a cat wears a lab coat or a bishop’s robe, so long as it catches mice.” (68)  

 

Notice the blithe assumption that GOTG arguments actually do “catch mice.”  But does Marshall actually provide any examples of even a single mouse caught by such an argument?  Of course not!  The whole thing is just an empty bluff.  I don’t know if Marshall is being deliberately dishonest here or if he’s just so clueless that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but the simple fact is that science rejects GOTG arguments for a very good reason:  They don’t actually catch any mice at all, because they don’t lead to any meaningful, testable hypotheses.

 

It is also interesting to note that GOTG arguments usually take the form of something like, “We don’t know how to explain X in naturalistic terms, therefore God must have done it.”  In other words, GOTG arguments use ignorance to reach the desired conclusion.  Basically they’re arguing, “We don’t know, therefore we do know,” which, of course, is simply stupid.  No wonder apologists like Marshall are so eager to sabotage high school science courses.  The more ignorant students are, the more scope there is for using GOTG arguments.

 

28.  Discussing origin-of-life research, Marshall claims that “the usual picture is of gaps narrowing as science progresses….  Here the situation is reversed.” (68)  

 

That’s highly misleading.  The history of science is full of examples in which new discoveries opened up vast, previously unexplored areas.  Early, Islamic chemists discovered that objects were much more complicated than the simple earth, wind, fire, and water suggested by Greek philosophers.  The discovery of the telescope opened up vast, previously unexplored areas to scientific investigation.  The discovery of the Western Hemisphere did the same.  The microscope did the same.  The discovery of radioactivity did the same.  The discovery of quantum mechanics did the same.  Marshall’s argument is just ignorant babbling.

 

29.  One of Marshall’s own citations indicates just how clueless he is.  Early in the book, Marshall cited medieval cartographers indicating the “limits of nature” by writing “Terra Incognita” on maps.  (Marshall actually said “terra incognito.”  Whoever wrote that on a map should have taken a refresher course in Latin!)  Not only did Marshall screw up the spelling, he also misrepresented the significance of those words.  Contrary to what Marshall said, the words didn’t indicate the limits of *nature*, rather they indicated the limits of *knowledge*, and that was a huge advance in the history of cartography.  Earlier map-makers used to fill in the blank spaces with all kinds of fabricated details not based on actual observation, direct or indirect, but based on legends, fairy tales, and the Bible.  In other words, early map-makers were a lot like Marshall.  They pretended to know things that they actually didn’t have a clue about.  This was not only misleading, but also dangerous for travelers relying on the maps.  When map-makers began being honest about the limits of their knowledge, their maps not only became more reliable and less dangerous, they were also a help to scientists and explorers, because it showed them where the areas were that needed further exploration, and thus stimulated that very activity.  It would probably be a good idea for Marshall to start telling the truth about the limits of his knowledge too.  Much of what he says in his book is simply made up out of thin air.  And that’s exactly why Christianity frequently was and is such a hindrance to science.  Ignoramuses who think that “theologians sipping lattes in glacial caves on the summit” (92) already know everything see no need for further exploration, while humble scientists know quite well that further exploration is needed.

 

It’s kind of sad.  Marshall cites a key event in the history of advancing knowledge, and its significance goes right over his head.

 

30.  Marshall quotes, apparently with approval, Dawkins’ statement that children are ‘native teleologists.” (75)  Marshall appears not to see one of the implications here, which is that children naturally try to figure out cause and effect relationships.  And they do it from a very early age.  So early, in fact, that it precedes any possible, meaningful, religious training.  Like the book says, even a baby in a highchair acts like a scientist.  Which is yet another indication of just how idiotic Marshall’s claim about Christianity inventing science is. (76 and 189) 

 

31.  Regarding Dawkins’ dismissal of the appearance of design, Marshall plaintively asks, “But why assume that the appearance of purpose in biology is an illusion?”  Whether through deliberate dishonesty or sheer incompetence, Marshall is misstating Dawkins’ position again.  Dawkins’ isn’t “assuming,” rather he’s simply withholding belief until credible evidence is produced to support belief.  That is certainly not the same thing as “assuming.”

 

It would probably be a far better question to ask why ID-proponents apparently assume that the appearance of design in biology *isn’t* an illusion.  Strangely, Marshall doesn’t appear interested in asking that particular question.

 

Science and religion are quite different, and Marshall just can’t seem to grasp the difference between the two.  In religion, faith precedes evidence.  Sometimes it even supercedes evidence.  That’s why Dawkins calls it “blind faith.”

 

32.  Marshall continues, “on what grounds do we tell the child who sees purpose in nature she’s deluded?” (75)  

 

Marshall should ask Michael Behe that question, since he indicated in “Darwin’s Black Box” that it was entirely appropriate to conclude that some of Paley’s arguments for the appearance of design in nature were mistaken.  If it’s OK for Marshall’s hero, Michael Behe, to make such arguments, then why is it wrong for Dawkins, Dennett, etc.?

 

And in any case, Marshall is misstating the issue once again.  The delusion isn’t that design is present, rather the delusion is that there’s sufficient evidence to conclude that design is present.  Dawkins openly concedes that design is a logical possibility; his actual argument is that there’s not enough evidence to justify the conclusion that design is in fact real.  For some reason, Marshall doesn’t seem to grasp the nuance there.  Perhaps he’s being deliberately obtuse.

 

33.  Marshall says that evolution certainly doesn’t disprove Christianity. (76)  This seems to be another of Marshall’s straw man arguments.  Notice that he fails to cite any New Atheist who claims that evolution *does* disprove Christianity.

 

34.  Marshall calls the folks promoting intelligent design at the Dishonesty Institute “scientists.” (76)  Since he previously made such a fuss about who was and who wasn’t doing science (63), his own use of the “scientist” label here needs to be justified.  Naturally, he provides no justification.  Apparently he just wants us to take his word for it.  That sounds a lot like blind faith.  I thought Marshall’s position was that Christians don’t have blind faith. (Chapter One.)  I wish Marshall would make up his mind and quit flip-flopping back and forth.

 

35.  Interestingly, Marshall criticizes those DI “scientists” for not being more “forthcoming.” (76)  Marshall previously emphasized that science should be open to evidence. (65)  Here, he’s calling people “scientists,” while complaining about them not being “forthcoming.”  Well, if science requires openness, and the DI folks aren’t open, then why does Marshall call them “scientists”?  Marshall seems to have a serious problem with consistency.

 

 

Chapter 5: Did God Evolve? (pp. 79-92)

 

In this chapter Marshall argues that the claim that God was invented by human beings “fails badly.” (79)

 

1.  The very first sentence is a quote from Lin Yutang: “All Chinese pagans believe in God.” 

 

Apparently, Marshall thinks that belief in the “one true God” is widespread and that this quote helps prove that.  Well, perhaps it does help Marshall on that point, but it seems to cause problems for Marshall on a different point.  On page 200, Marshall claims that “atheism played a central part in the ideology of one or both sides of most of the great wars of the century,” and he lists two wars that China fought.  But if all the pagans in China believed in God, as Marshall’s own source says, then that seems to cast doubt on Marshall’s argument and make it look like maybe it was theists who were waging war.

 

2.  Marshall claims that Dennett *assumes* that the best way to undermine religion is to show that it can be explained as a natural result of the evolutionary process. (80) Marshall quotes or cites Dennett several times, but somehow never actually succeeds in showing Dennett ever expressing that assumption.  So Marshall’s claim looks like another naked assertion.

 

3.  In a really bizarre paragraph, Marshall says, “Let’s not assume, however, that explaining a state of mind really does explain it away.  If you hit your head on a beam and say, ‘I see stars,’ your doctor probably won’t get out a telescope and look for the Andromeda Galaxy in the ceiling joist of his clinic.” (80)  

 

But whoever said that “explaining a state of mind” is necessarily tantamount to “explaining it away”?  Marshall provides no citations showing that Dawkins or Dennett ever said any such thing, which raises the suspicion that Marshall is beating up another straw man here.  And what does Marshall’s second sentence have to do with the topic?  Marshall seems to be spouting nonsense.

 

4.  Marshall continues, “On the other hand, if Dennett is right, the perception that ‘two and two make four’ must also have an evolutionary origin.  …  If evolutionary roots explain one idea away, they explain them all away.”  Again, this seems to be just nonsense.  Why would evolutionary roots explain away the idea that “two and two make four”?  Marshall provides no explanation at all.  He seems to be just babbling.

 

Considering these last two points as a whole, one gets the impression that Marshall has no clear idea what he’s talking about here, but he desperately wants to say something bad about Dawkins, Dennett, and evolution, so he concocts this garbled gibberish, and presents it in a way that makes it look like he’s criticizing something that Dawkins, Dennett, or evolution imply; when the reality is that Marshall provides no reason whatsoever to believe that either Dawkins, or Dennett, or evolution actually imply whatever it is that Marshall is talking about.  This is far from being the only paragraph in the book that looks like complete gibberish.  Marshall’s gibberish reminds me of Alan Sokal’s famous hoax, in which he submitted a phony article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies.  The article was liberally salted with nonsense designed to (a) sound impressive and (b) pander to the editors’ ideological preconceptions.  After the journal’s editors published Sokal’s gibberish, he disclosed the hoax, exposing the editors as gullible fools.  Sokal’s article was described as “a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense ….”  Change “left-wing” to “theist,” and I think you would have an accurate description of Marshall’s gibberish.  And only a gullible fool like Dr. Paul Griffiths, for example, would be taken in by such gibberish.

 

5.  Marshall finds some of Dennett’s suggestions about the possible role of the “intentional stance,” in which one attributes intention to things that move in a complex way, “fairly plausible.”  But then he asks, “What about out-of-body experiences?  Miraculous cures?  Answers to prayers?” (82)  Marshall raises these issues as if they were a serious obstacle to Dennett’s thesis, but before he even reaches the end of the paragraph, he himself shows why they aren’t serious obstacles at all:  “[I]n some cases *miracle* is probably used as a synonym for *amazing or mysterious event*….”  Yes, exactly.  People are fond of inserting themselves into *miraculous* events.  Apparently it’s a big ego boost.  And that may be exactly the reason why such reports are frequently viewed with such skepticism even by religious folks.  And if religious experts view them with such skepticism, then Dennett, Dawkins, et al., might be excused for viewing them with skepticism too. 

 

6.  But Marshall won’t give up so easily.  “… I’ve also heard many firsthand stories that, if true, pretty much rule out materialism as a possible explanation for reality.” (82)  This is a meaningless argument.  Marshall is putting the cart before the ass.  Before speculating about what the stories would mean *if* they were true, Marshall ought first to make some effort to determine whether they are *in fact* true.

 

7.  But Marshall knows when to duck the tough issues.  “My point at the moment isn’t to argue that such experiences are real.” (83)  Translation:  “No one in their right mind would give any credence to such gibberish.”

 

8.  Marshall argues that primitive man “must” have had the same “miraculous” experiences too.  Well, so what?  If today’s reports of such experiences are frequently viewed as dubious, even by believers like Marshall himself, then what in God’s name makes him think that reports from long, long ago and far, far away are any less dubious?  Marshall’s argument makes no sense at all.

 

9.  Marshall claims that psychologist Scott Peck thought some of his patients were literally possessed. (83)  Well, I understand that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is being revised, with a special emphasis on “test-retest reliability,” which involves different clinicians doing independent evaluations of the same patient.  If Dr. Peck’s findings can be confirmed independently, then I’d be happy to revisit this issue.  If his findings can’t be confirmed independently, then I think Marshall’s argument has a pretty major problem. 

 

10.  Marshall claims that “Surely earlier generations had an excuse to make the same diagnosis [as Peck].”  Pointless inanity.  Who cares what primitive flat-Earthers thought?  They didn’t even have DSM IV to work with!

 

11.  Marshall complains that Dennett doesn’t seem “sufficiently startled by the portrait of man social science has sketched,” even though, according to Marshall, “far more has changed in us than meets the eye.”  Here are Marshall’s examples:  “Do gorillas tell ghost stories in the jungle at night?  Do chimps see King Kong in the clouds?  When Fido is unfaithful, does he do penance?  Why does a monkey in a wedding gown make us laugh?” (83)

 

There seem to be some serious problems with Marshall’s argument here.  First, it implies a vast difference between humans and other animals, which seems inconsistent with Marshall’s complaints elsewhere about evolution not producing sufficiently novel innovations. (71-73)  The murkiness of Marshall’s arguments seems quite problematic.  Second, being “startled” is not a rigorously defined, objectively determined state in any case; so trying to use that as evidence seems pretty weak.  Grownups may indeed laugh when they see a monkey in a wedding gown, but they also laugh when they see a three-year-old clomping around the house in her mom’s high heels.  So what’s Marshall’s point?  His argument appears to be completely vacuous.

 

12.  Marshall asks, “If evolution saw fit to make us moral … creatures, why only us?” (83)  Marshall apparently thinks evolution is obligated to cater to his idiosyncratic wishes.  Naturally, he provides no sensible justification for thinking that.

 

Another thing seems strange about Marshall’s argument.   Apparently, he thinks it’s perfectly OK for God to work in mysterious ways.  So why should evolution be any different?  Marshall provides no sensible justification for the apparent double-standard, so his argument appears to be based more on bias than on reason.

 

13.  Apparently trying to minimize the accomplishments of science and maximize the accomplishments of the Bible, Marshall says that Dennett’s warning against over-attributing intentionality to inanimate objects “sounds a lot like what the prophets said when they warned against worshipping stone or beast.” (83-84)

 

Well, if you’re pretty careless about concepts and terminology, I guess those do sound somewhat similar, however, a careful reader would probably realize that: (i) there’s a huge difference between “over-attributing intentionality” and “worshipping;” and (ii) there’s another huge difference between “inanimate objects” and “beasts.”  So Marshall’s argument here appears to depend quite a bit on sloppy reading.  I suppose that’s better than the outright falsehoods he relies on in other places, but even so, it still seems pretty feeble.

 

Furthermore, Dennett based his warning on fairly detailed, empirical evidence.  What did the prophets base their warning on?  Wild speculation?  A lucky guess?  If Marshall wants to express glowing admiration for that, I guess that’s his right, but it seems about as appropriate as expressing admiration for a drunk driver who manages to get home without killing anyone.  Yeah, he arrived home, but is that kind of behavior something we should be praising?

 

Finally, in judging the praiseworthiness of the old religious figures, Marshall seems to keep forgetting their apparent acceptance of obviously ridiculous flat-Earth, geocentric, and antepodean hypotheses.  The old prophets no doubt got some things right, but so does the dart-throwing chimp picking stocks at the Wall Street Journal.  No one in his right mind would ooh and aah over the chimp’s lucky guesses.  Why would anyone in his right mind ooh and aah over the prophets’ lucky guesses?

 

14.  If Marshall is really that concerned about “over-attributing intentionality” to inanimate objects, then he may want to re-write what he said implying that “evolution saw fit to make us moral … creatures.”  Of course he said that quite a while back.  A full four paragraphs ago.  No wonder he seems to have forgotten all about it.

 

15.  According to Marshall, “[Dennett] says religion encourages us to repeat ‘incomprehensible elements.’  Two millennia ago, Jesus warned against ‘meaningless repetition’ (Matthew 6:7).” (83-84)

 

Marshall seems to be as clueless about the history of the Bible as he is about the history of science.  According to many NT scholars, Jesus didn’t actually say the words Marshall attributes to Him, rather the phrase was added to Protestant translations of the Bible after the start of the Protestant Reformation, because Protestants objected to the Catholic practice of frequent recitation of the Rosary.

 

In short, the passage that Marshall thinks shows the scientific prescience of the Holy Bible may actually show nothing more than the arrogance and dishonesty of people like Marshall who try to twist the Bible to promote their own views.

 

16.  Hilariously, Marshall concludes this particular discussion by warning atheists about the need for humility. (85)  What a pretentious, unreflective buffoon!

 

17.  Marshall implies that religious beliefs have remained generally consistent across cultures and through time, and he presents that as a problem for Dennett and Dawkins. (88 – 92)  Not every theologian agrees with Marshall, however.  McGrath, for example, whose credentials and influence far exceed Marshall’s, says, “[I]t is now known that religion does not exhibit the ‘universal features’ that Dawkins's preferred approach demands....”  Based on that, it appears that Marshall is wrong on two counts: first, that religion exhibits those “universal features;” and second, that the new atheists’ arguments would fall apart if religion did have those features.

 

William Dembski, another theologian whose credentials and influence far exceed Marshall’s, also seems to disagree with Marshall.  Dembski calls Greek and Hindu religious beliefs “pathetic,” so he apparently sees a vast difference between those beliefs and Christianity, not the similarity that Marshall implies.

 

Both of those scholars are pretty well known.  Marshall’s failure to cite either one of them on this specific issue looks a bit suspicious.  Perhaps Marshall’s research wasn’t all that thorough after all.

 

18.  Marshall asks, “…what should we think when scattered tribes agree in so much detail about God?  Shouldn’t that make us suspect that one religious idea is true? (89)

 

What it might make us think is that religious beliefs may reflect an awful lot of wishful thinking, that it is human beings doing that wishful thinking, that human beings across cultures have a great many needs and desires in common, and that it is therefore not entirely unexpected that their religious beliefs should share quite a few features in common too.  That seems pretty obvious.  I wonder why it apparently never occurred to Marshall.

 

19.  On that same subject, Marshall never even mentions the cargo cults that Dawkins spent six pages on. (TGD, 202-207)  That’s a rather surprising omission.  Anthropologists found that very similar cargo cults sprang up in several widely separated cultures.  That seems quite relevant to the similarity of religious beliefs that Marshall found so significant.  I wonder why he never even mentioned them.  Marshall seems to want others to be “open to evidence,” (66), but he himself apparently just simply ignores it whenever he feels like it.

 

20.  Marshall says that “Augustine predicted that believers in the true God would be found in all directions,” and then asks, “Looking at the discoveries of modern anthropology, who can say that Augustine (and Paul, whose teachings he followed) was wrong?” (91)  This appears to be yet another cheap shot at science, since Marshall presents no evidence that “modern anthropology” does in fact deny that there are Christians on every inhabited continent.  And since Marshall fails to provide any citation showing that Augustine was following Paul’s alleged teaching on this point, it appears that his argument is also partly based on a naked assertion, and we all know why that’s worrisome.

 

21.  Trying to support his argument about the universality of belief in the Christian God, Marshall boldly proclaims that researchers “found the Christian God at all stations of the compass.” (92)  But the Christian God is generally held to be a triune God, and Marshall presents no evidence showing that belief in that kind of god existed anywhere prior to the arrival of Christian missionaries.  So Marshall’s evidence seems to have a pretty big hole in it.

 

 

Chapter 6: Is the Good Book Bad? (pp. 95-114)

The twisted logic and other inconsistencies in this chapter make it look like Marshall is simply making stuff up as he goes along.  It’s hard to take his arguments seriously, when he’s so likely to completely reverse himself just a few pages later.

 

1.  Marshall mocks Dawkins for finding the Bible weird, saying, “Have you seen a squid put on a light show to scare away predators?  Now that’s strange.” (96)  Marshall’s mocking would be a bit more tolerable if he weren’t such a buffoon himself.  The strangeness that is found in nature is not the same kind of strangeness that Dawkins was commenting on.  Marshall should probably save his mocking for times when he isn’t foolishly trying to compare natural apples to artificial oranges.

 

2.  Marshall wonders how the Bible could be so bad, given the number of Christians in the world and the longevity of the Jewish people. (96)  Marshall’s implied argument seems highly illogical.  Prostitution has survived for a long time too and in pretty substantial numbers too.  Does Marshall therefore think that prostitution isn’t bad either?

 

3.  Marshall says, “It may be that oddness is a prerequisite of any book that would explain or help that oddest of all creatures, yourself (and me).” (97)  This pious babbling is supposed to demonstrate the intellectual rigor of Marshall’s arguments? 

 

4.  Marshall complains that Dawkins misrepresents the story in Judges 19-21 about the concubine who was cut up into twelve pieces and sent to the twelve tribes of Israel.  Marshall points out that the last verse of Judges makes it clear that “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (97-98)

 

Yeah, but so what?  There were a lot of actors in that lengthy story, many of them were clearly devoted to God, and many of them went on to commit outrageous acts of sexual violence themselves after first expressing their devotion to the one true God.  All of those would seem to be pretty damning facts.  I wonder why Marshall leaves them out?

 

5.  Furthermore, Marshall indicates just a few pages later that Christian Natural Law theory implies the existence of a universal moral awareness of what’s right and wrong (103), so his lame excuse here, that “there was no king in Israel,” seems highly inconsistent.  Can’t Marshall keep his arguments straight even for just a few consecutive pages?

 

6.  As pointed out in Section I, Marshall grossly misrepresents the story in Judges 11 about Jephthah sacrificing his own daughter in accordance with a deal he made with God. (98)  That story is significant for another reason.  Marshall claims just two pages later that the story of Abraham and Isaac shows God putting an end to human sacrifice, but the story of Jephthah occurred long afterward, and yet it still includes a human sacrifice made to God.  So it looks like Marshall is misrepresenting not only the story in Judges about God’s accepting Jephthah’s offer of a human sacrifice, but also the significance of the story of Abraham and Isaac.  

 

7.  Marshall quotes C.S. Lewis’ “Voyage of the Dawn Trader” talking about the Dufflepuds, who always agree with their chief:

 

“Why, bless me, if I haven’t gone and left out the whole point.”  “That you have, that you have,” roared the Other Voices with great enthusiasm.  “No one couldn’t have left it out cleaner and better.  Keep it up, chief, keep it up.” (99)

 

Marshall mocks Dawkins by comparing the Chief’s missing the point to Dawkins’ allegedly misreading the Bible.  Marshall ought to save his mocking for occasions when he isn’t being an even bigger fool than his intended target.  Marshall’s mockery occurs right after his blunders regarding Dawkins’ discussion of the Bible stories of Jephthah and the vivisected concubine, so it appears that it’s Marshall, not Dawkins, who went and left out the whole point, not once, but twice.

 

8.  Marshall claims that in (allegedly) misreading the Bible, Dawkins mistook narrative for editorial, and implies that such mistakes are pretty much to be expected from readers of the New York Times. (100)  Marshall seems to be at his stupidest just when he thinks he’s making fun of someone else’s stupidity.

 

9.  After conceding that the Bible contains both good parts and bad parts when it comes to teaching moral values, Dawkins asks how Christians pick and choose between them.  Marshall claims to find this “doubly astounding.  The criteria by which Christians read the Bible is supposed to be a mystery?  Note the first six letters of the word *Christian*: C-H-R-I-S-T.  That Christians see the life of Jesus as the interpretive principle by which to read the Bible shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has wandered into a church and glanced at a stained glass window!” (102-103)  (Emphasis in original.)

 

I’m rather astounded at Marshall’s being “doubly astounded.”  I wonder if he’s simply putting on a phony act for his Christian readers.  The fact of the matter, Marshall’s soaring rhetoric notwithstanding, is that C-H-R-I-S-T seems to have had very little success in making sure that Christians interpret the Bible’s moral teachings in a uniform manner.  Think of any major moral issue in recent years: slavery, segregation, women’s rights, contraception, immigration, the death penalty, the war in (fill in the blank), evolution education, sex education, same-sex marriage, etc., etc., etc., and you’ll find Christians screaming at each other from both sides of the argument.  Marshall seems to have his head buried so deep in the sand that even the most obvious problems escape his notice.

 

Also, Matthew 5:17-18 states: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”  Based on that, it looks like human sacrifice, stoning persons caught in adultery, slavery, etc., are all OK with Jesus C-H-R-I-S-T. 

10.  Marshall also mocks Hauser’s attempt to do some actual research in this area. (103)  I guess Marshall wants science to be open to evidence (66), but not so open that people actually go out and gather any of it!  Seems a bit hypocritical IMHO. 

 

11.  Marshall disparages Hauser’s questionnaire, apparently because it shows no awareness of “Natural Law theory.” (103)  But Marshall doesn’t provide any explanation of how a questionnaire *could* show such awareness.  And whatever way Marshall has (or perhaps doesn’t have) in mind, he fails to document that Hauser’s questionnaire *doesn’t* show such awareness.  Nor does Marshall explain why such surveys *should* show an awareness of NLT.  Marshall’s whole argument kind of makes you wonder whether his outrage is real or just a phony act he’s putting on to impress gullible readers.

 

12.  Furthermore, as pointed out above, the implication in Marshall’s argument that Christians interpret natural law theory in a unified, consistent manner seems extremely unlikely.  Marshall’s argument here, as in so many other places, seems to be just an empty bluff.

 

13.  Marshall illustrates his point about the universality of moral knowledge with a reference to Adam and Eve, who “came to know good and evil.” (103)  I wonder why Marshall leaves out the story of Jephthah here.  And the story from Judges 19-21.  Does Marshall really think that cherry-picking his data that way is a legitimate way to argue?

 

14 - 15.  Marshall says it’s hard to see how evolution provides any moral impetus to saving a drowning child, since “infanticide and human sacrifice have been practiced on every continent.” (104)

 

a.  Marshall seems to be basing his argument here on the assumption that what’s found in nature is what is moral, but that’s a well-known error in logic, sometimes called the “naturalistic fallacy.”  Marshall’s apparent ignorance of basic concepts really seems astonishing.

 

b.  Furthermore, the fact that “infanticide and human sacrifice have been practiced on every continent” might be more of a problem for Marshall to harmonize with his religious views than for evolutionists to harmonize with evolution, at least in any rigorous manner.  Of course, the rhetorical armamentarium of some apologists is not necessarily confined to what’s rigorous.

 

16.  Discussing morality, Marshall quotes some proverbs, and then asks, “What university faculty wouldn’t benefit by meditating on a few such proverbs every day?” (105)  This seems to be another of Marshall’s condescending attacks on his academic superiors.  This kind of cheap shot rhetoric may be help Marshall deal with his resentment toward those who are better educated and more influential than he, but it hardly qualifies as a legitimate argument.  In fact, it makes him seem rather petty.

 

17 - 18.  Attacking what he calls “Dawkins’s most astoundingly wrongheaded reading of the Bible,” Marshall claims that the Bible teaches us to love all people, not just our “in group.” (105)  Two obvious problems with Marshall’s argument here are that:

 

a) There do seem to be an awful lot of Biblical passages that seem to contradict his argument and that he makes little or no effort to explain away.  (Both Landon Hedrick and Arizona Atheist cite numerous Biblical passages that seem highly problematic for Marshall’s argument.  I won’t bother repeating them here.)

 

b.  Both Jews and Christians seem to have long histories of hostility toward out-groups.  Or has Marshall completely forgotten that Christians helped kill over 6,000,000 Jews just a few decades ago?

 

19.  Marshall claims that the Bible stands for “racial unity” and that “all are one in Jesus Christ.” It has always been a theistic dogma that humans are alike in nature and dignity as the image of God. (105-108)

 

Both Landon Hedrick and Arizona Atheist cite numerous Biblical passages that seem highly problematic for Marshall’s argument.  I won’t bother repeating them here, however, as a retired lawyer, I think it’s interesting to see what some prominent Christian jurists have said relevant to this issue.  The Supreme Court’s notorious Dred Scott decision is quite interesting, as is the Virginia state court ruling in Virginia v. Loving, which approved criminal sanctions for people marrying outside their own race.  It seems that not every Christian reads “C-H-R-I-S-T” the same way Marshall does, nor does every Christian interpret “natural law” the same way Marshall does.  Marshall seldom seems more oblivious, than when he’s pontificating about how obvious Christian morals are.

 

20.  Dawkins thinks the Bible’s original teaching was for Jews to love other Jews.  Marshall says that Dawkins “borrows liberally from an article … by ‘physician and anthropologist’ John Hartung.” (106)

 

What’s interesting about Marshall’s statement is that he puts “physician and anthropologist” in scare quotes.  Why in God’s name does he do that?  Is it to let his readers know that Hartung has studied science and is therefore not to be trusted?  Some of Marshall’s arguments are simply and utterly bizarre.  And it says a lot that this kind of cheap shot occurs in the section where Marshall is babbling about how the Bible teaches us to love everyone.

 

21 - 22.  Marshall repeats pretty much the same mistakes in his arguments about the Bible’s treatment of women. (108-110)  He mostly ignores both: a) the problematic passages; and b) the problematic history.  One need only mention issues like the ordination of women, Promise Keepers, and contraception to expose Marshall’s blindness here.

 

23.  Marshall invites readers to conclude that Dawkins was inspired by the devil (108), but it’s interesting to note the number of blatant falsehoods in Marshall’s book (see Section I, above) and recall who the “father of lies” is alleged to be.

 

24.  Marshall says that “One notes, ominously, that the Old Testament does not appear in Dawkins’s bibliography.” (109)

 

Marshall frequently acts like a pedantic twit, not only in his book, but also in his internet posts.  This is a typical example.  But I’ve read books by Alister McGrath, among other noteworthy Christian theologians who don’t always include the OT in their bibliographies either.  If Marshall complained about McGrath not including the OT in his bibliography, educated Christians would laugh Marshall to scorn, because McGrath’s academic credentials and achievements are enormously superior to Marshall’s puny CV; but Marshall feels comfortable making the same complaint about Dawkins.  Apparently Marshall is hoping that his readers will be too gullible or too prejudiced to object.

 

25.  Marshall comments disapprovingly about rappers or movies that pander to “evolutionary libido” (110); but just one page earlier he was praising the Song of Solomon’s expression of “frank female sensuality.”  Gee, the difference a single page makes!  Marshall’s arguments seem to have about as much consistency as a puff of smoke on a breezy day.

 

26 - 28.  Disputing the charge that the Bible is disjointed, Marshall points out that: a) Handel wrote songs about the birth of Jesus; b) Gargoyles are found on churches; and c) Kierkegaard, Handel, Crosby, and Booth were inspired by the same volume. (110)

 

I’m serious!  That really is Marshall’s argument!  Three arguments, all of them simply bizarre.  Apparently Marshall seems to be largely unfamiliar with the concept of logical relevance.

 

29.  Dawkins complains that there is no rigorous set of criteria for deciding which scriptures should be interpreted as symbolic and which as literal.  Marshall implies that there *are* rigorous answers to Dawkins’ complaint, but, as usual, he provides no objective, credible evidence to support his claim. (110-111)

 

30.  Marshall criticizes Harris’ disparaging discussion of the divine origin of scripture, but Marshall’s discussion of the issue is so vague that it hardly counts as a response at all.  He refers to scripture as “divine speech,” and says “God takes up humanity and speaks through it...,” but what does that mean? It looks like nothing more than pious bafflegab. (111-113)

 

31.  Marshall also claims that “The Bible isn’t an inkblot on which to project our fancies.” (112)

 

We’ve already seen how meaningless that argument is, since, throughout history, that’s pretty much exactly how the Bible has been used.  Once again, Marshall seems completely ignorant about the history of Christianity.

 

 

Chapter 7: What Should an Atheist Do About Jesus? (pp. 115-132)

Among other things, this chapter discusses arguments that imply that Jesus was either a liar, lunatic, or legend.  There’s not much to the chapter other than feeble arguments to authority.

 

1.  Marshall says the Gospels “pass strict historical interrogation with flying colors.” (117)  Marshall mentions N.T. Wright’s name here, but provides no other credible evidence to support this otherwise almost completely naked assertion.   

 

2.  Dawkins referred to the “Infancy Gospel of Thomas” as the “Gospel of Thomas.”  Marshall, outraged, says that “this kind of sloppiness is one reason Dawkins is not a historian.” (121)  

 

Well, at least Dawkins didn’t imply that the Bible was written in the Stone Age.  Now that would really be sloppy!  Nor did he say that it was Karl Popper’s hypothesis, not Thomas Kuhn’s, that scientific paradigms are slow to change.  Now that would really be sloppy!  Nor did he say in the first part of a sentence that Dennett cites Pascal, a very prominent Christian, and then imply in the last part of the very same sentence that Dennett doesn’t cite any Christians at all.   That would really be sloppy too!  Nor does he cite J.P. Moreland’s “Love Your God …” as the source of a statement that actually comes from Dawkins’ “The God Delusion.”  Now that would really be sloppy!  If Marshall wants to act like a pedantic twit, then he ought to do something about his own mistakes.

 

In any case, noteworthy theologians and other scholars, both ancient and modern, with far more impressive credentials than Marshall’s, have referred to the Infancy Gospel the same way Dawkins did.  Marshall’s just being a pedantic twit.

 

3.  Marshall describes the way Jesus treated women, as if there were something particularly noteworthy about it, but he offers little or no rational justification. (129)  (Though the implication that bantering with women over drinks -- perhaps a Dos Equis -- is part of what makes someone “the most interesting person on Earth” is somehow appealing to me!)

 

Marshall’s argument is essentially based on little more than idiosyncratic preferences, not rational analysis.  It resembles Muslim arguments for the authority of their Holy Book, the Koran.  Presumably, Marshall doesn’t give the Muslims’ idiosyncratic rationale any credence.  There doesn’t seem to be much justification for treating Marshall’s idiosyncratic rationale any better.

 

4.  Regarding the possibility that Jesus was a nut, Marshall says that “people with loose screws don’t write the Sermon on the Mount.” (131) 

 

I wonder what Marshall’s qualifications are for making that claim.  Does he have a degree in psychology or psychiatry?  Does he have any recognized professional training or experience in psychology or psychiatry?  If not, then his claim looks like just a bluff, which is tantamount to dishonesty, IMO, because it implies that Marshall is presenting claims as being true without actually knowing or even having any way of knowing that they are in fact true.

 

And this particular claim certainly looks highly dubious.  There are many examples, both from the art world and the world of science, of people making highly significant contributions, even though they suffered from very serious mental problems.

 

This claim also looks very much like it is actually based on nothing more substantial than Marshall’s personal opinion, and when someone has been caught in as many falsehoods as Marshall has been caught in, his personal opinion doesn’t seem to be worth very much.

 

 

Chapter 8: Is Christianity a Blessing? (pp. 135-154)

In this chapter, Marshall argues that, merely through the NT phrase about Jesus coming so “that they may have life, and have it abundantly (John 10:10),” God’s promise to Abraham to bless all the peoples of the world is progressively fulfilled. (136)

 

1.  Marshall admits that “believers often strike ‘wrong’ cords” (sic) which lead to inquisitions, etc.; but he argues that “when Christians act on Gospel teachings in tune with the Holy Spirit … a higher-order ‘music of life’ emerges.” 

 

Marshall is very careless with his terminology.  The lack of clarity makes his arguments so mushy and vague that they sometimes don’t seem to have any real meaning at all.  In this chapter and pretty much through the rest of the book, Marshall really indulges his penchant for flowery rhetoric that seems to lack any real meaning.  For someone looking for a rational discussion, that really sounds like a wrong chord.

 

2.  Marshall claims that the Bible ended slavery in Europe twice, (145) which makes one wonder why it didn’t take the first time.  In any case, Marshall provides no credible evidence that this actually occurred, so his claim is basically just a very dubious naked assertion. (The details are discussed in Section II, above.)

 

3.  Marshall says, “Rodney Stark chronicles Christian work to free the slaves in rich detail.” (146)  But according to Avalos, Stark is not doing the chronicling himself, rather he is merely quoting from John A. Auping’s book, “Religion and Social Justice: The Case of Christianity and the Abolition of Slavery in America.”  Marshall’s description of Stark’s chronicling “in rich detail” seems to be nothing but bombastic hyperbole.

 

4 - 7.  Marshall asks, “Why did Poland, the most Christian country in Europe, throw off communism first” (151), as if it were a rhetorical question whose answer was obvious.  But of course, the answer is far from obvious, I think Marshall knows full well that the answer isn’t obvious, and I think that makes his rhetorical bluff so misleading as to qualify as dishonest.

 

Marshall asks similarly inappropriate rhetorical questions that falsely imply that it’s obvious that favorable political reforms in the Philippines and China and favorable overseas interventions by the U.S. must be attributed largely if not exclusively to the Bible’s influence. (151-152)  Marshall seems to be using rhetorical questions as a substitute for providing actual evidence.  That’s obviously an illegitimate strategy.

 

Marshall’s improper use of rhetorical questions here reminds me of the old joke about prisoners who have told the same jokes so many times that all they have to do is call out the joke’s number, and everybody laughs.  Marshall seems to be writing this book to an audience that has been trained like Pavlov’s dogs to arrive at the approved conclusion even before any rational justification for that conclusion has been provided.  That sounds a lot like blind faith, not rational argument.

 

On one point after another, Marshall seems to be relying on a brainwashed choir to sing the appropriate chorus, even though he himself seems to be lip-synching.  It’s kind of funny.  I wonder what kind of chords go with lip-synching.

 

8.  Marshall claims that “unlike Islam and other revolutionary religions, Christianity prescribes separation of church and state.” (152)

 

That’s dubious.  Quite a few Christians don’t believe any such thing.  This looks like another of Marshall’s idiosyncratic interpretations of the Bible.

 

 

Chapter 9: Or a Curse? (pp. 155-172)

 

In this chapter Marshall considers that charge that there’s something in Christianity that, when taken seriously, leads to the murder of the innocent. 

 

1.  Marshall says the “charge demands honest consideration” (156), but in the section titled “Darwin to Hitler?” (194-197), instead of considering the charge honestly, Marshall simply rewrites history to minimize if not completely ignore the important role that Christianity played in enabling, promoting, and carrying out the Holocaust.

 

2.  Marshall notes with approval Pope Urban II’s calling Persians an “accursed race.” (156)  So much for the myth of Christianity proclaiming the equality of all humans. (108)

 

3.  Marshall calls the Crusades “a momentary response.” (157) Well, if “momentary” means “a few hundred years,” then I suppose the Crusades could be considered “momentary.”  But it seems more likely that Marshall’s use of such a vague term reveals a deliberate attempt to mislead readers by minimizing Christianity’s bloody history.

 

4.  Marshall claims it “seems hypocritical to attack our ancestors for defending themselves against aggression when NATO checked socialist jihad by threatening to nuke a thousand Ma’arras.”  Well, perhaps.  But it also seems hypocritical to be boasting about the superiority of a religious faith that seems in important ways to act pretty much just like everybody else. 

 

5.  Marshall asks why, if we aren’t going to attribute good things to Christianity, like the advance of science or writing the Magna Carta, should we blame Christianity for things like the Inquisition? (157)  As Landon Hedrick points out, Marshall seems to be comparing apples and oranges.  The role that Christianity played in scientific endeavors and the writing of the Magna Carta was arguably rather remote and indirect, while the role that Christianity played in promoting the Inquisition seems much more immediate and direct, and Marshall certainly makes no credible effort to show otherwise. 

 

6.  Marshall says that Scripture “is written in plain English (or Greek) for all to see.” (158)  Yeah, I guess the “plain” meaning of Scripture is the explanation for why different denominations of Christians got along so well over the past two millennia.  Hahahahaha!  Honest to God, sometimes Marshall just seems so clueless.

 

7.  Marshall says “We’ve seen nonreligious societies, and can also look at animals and get an idea of how people might act without religious teaching.” (158)  Well, from Marshall’s own examples, it looks in many cases like theists don’t behave any better than atheists.  So what’s Marshall’s point? 

 

And Marshall conveniently seems to have forgotten all about Christianity’s dogma about Natural Law theory, which apparently holds that everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, is aware of basic moral precepts.  Marshall seemed outraged about Hauser’s alleged failure to take that theory into account in his research (103); so how come Marshall himself seems to ignore it here?

 

8 - 9.  Marshall says, “It’s harder to find warrant in the New Testament for torturing heretics.” (159)  Perhaps that’s because, instead of torturing opponents, Jesus seemed to prefer killing them instead. (Luke 19:27)  I’m not sure why Marshall thinks that’s an improvement.

 

And as Marshall himself points out, major Christian theologians and rulers approved of and/or authorized the use of torture for hundreds of years. (159)  I wonder where all those Christian theologians and rulers found their warrant, and how Marshall squares any of that with his empty blather about natural law theory. (103)

 

10.  Marshall says, “Why blame Jesus when people do the opposite of what he taught?” (160)  Perhaps it’s because burning witches and heretics doesn’t actually seem to conflict all that much with what Jesus taught. (John 15:6)

 

11.  Marshall claims that “the Inquisition actually protected accused witches in Spain.” (160)  Naturally, he provides no citation to document that dubious claim.

 

12.  Marshall concedes that “Scapegoating operates with or without religion.” (163)  Yeah, exactly, so what good is religion?

 

13.  On the issue of Christianity and anti-Semitism, Marshall claims that “Nazis would hardly quote the teaching, also in John, that ‘salvation is from the Jews’ (John 4:22).” (164)  Well, perhaps not, but Nazis, including Hitler himself, did indeed cite other parts of the Gospel, such as the story of Jesus driving the money-changers from the temple.  I wonder why Marshall leaves that part out.

 

14.  Marshall also claims that America has never seen a pogrom. (165)  Perhaps that’s partly because the first Christian immigrants were so successful in keeping Jews out of the country.  Strangely, Marshall doesn’t even mention the KKK and its rabid anti-Semitism, even though the KKK was the largest Protestant social group in the world.  Nor does he mention Father Coughlin and his rabid anti-Semitism, even though Father Coughlin was one of the most popular American radio personalities of his day.  I guess Marshall’s advocacy of “openness to evidence” (66) only applies when he thinks it benefits his side.

 

15.  Responding to Dawkins’ alleged claim that the Nazis were “surely Christian,” Marshall says that “the percent of SS troops who belonged to the Catholic Church plummeted during the war.” (168)

 

From that argument, we might infer that rigorous logic is not one of Marshall’s strong points.  There are many different kinds of Christians, and therefore it is obviously possible that the number of Christians in the SS, both numerically and as a percentage, could easily have increased, even if the percentage of Catholics decreased.  Fortunately for Marshall, there doesn’t seem to be any requirement that apologists understand either statistics or logic.

 

16.  Marshall continues, asking why the percentage of university students studying theology dropped from 1933 to 1939.  Uh, gee, I don’t know, maybe it’s partly because Germany was getting ready for war, which increased the relative economic incentives to enter fields other than theology. 

 

Honestly, this stuff is so obvious, it’s hard to believe that Marshall isn’t aware of it.  Returning to the simple example that Avalos used when he exposed Marshall’s errors on the slavery issue:  The mere fact that the number of chimney sweeps declined, does not logically justify concluding that there must have been a formally enacted program specifically discriminating against them.  Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” is quite capable of moving populations too.  If Marshall thinks economic arguments like this are so important, then he ought to go back to school and actually learn something about economics.  His inane babbling about economic issues just makes him look ignorant.

 

17.  Marshall continues, asking why the Nazis killed thousands of Polish priests. (168)  Uh, gee, I don’t know, maybe it’s partly because it was wartime and Germany was at war with Poland.  Did Marshall ever consider that possibility?

 

18.  Marshall continues, asking how a “solidly Catholic region like Bavaria … [ended] up having no Catholic schools by 1939?”  Again, there are any number of possible explanations.  If Marshall thinks there is a specific, causal explanation, then it’s his job to present it and then justify it.  The vague innuendos he’s relying on seem meaningless, if not actually dishonest.

 

Interestingly, Marshall conveniently left out the fact that, as Landon Hedrick pointed out, the Nazis’ party platform apparently explicitly proposed teaching Catholic beliefs.  (Source: http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php).

 

19.  Marshall asks if the attacks on Mother Teresa are “an improvement on Jesus’ archaic ‘Love your enemies’”?  Well, I don’t know about that, but it might be an improvement on Jesus’ archaic command to gather up his enemies and kill them. (Luke 19:27)  It’s funny how Marshall seems to keep forgetting about that part of the NT.

 

 

Chapter 10: What About the “American Taliban?” (pp. 173-188)

 

1.  Dawkins repeated a quote attributed to Pat Robertson about God using natural disasters like Katrina as punishment for sin, but the quote came from a spoof website and, like some of Marshall’s quotes, it wasn’t really true.  Dawkins apparently suspected as much, because he warned readers about the quote’s dubious authenticity in a long note at the bottom of the page.  Marshall berates Dawkins for putting the warning in a footnote instead of in the body of the text. (175)

 

Marshall acts like a pedantic twit sometimes, with his over-the-top histrionics about trivia like this, but if he wants to make a huge deal out of putting information in a long footnote instead of in the body of the text, I guess he’s free to do so.  But he should still report Dawkins’ argument honestly.  His failure to do that in this case seems a far worse error than what Dawkins did.

 

Marshall says: “Dawkins admits he’s not sure if the story … is true.  But ‘whether true or not,’ it’s relevant because ‘it is entirely typical of utterances by evangelical clergy … on disasters such as Katrina.’” (175)

 

Marshall’s description of Dawkins’ argument is misleading, because it falsely implies that Dawkins explicitly claimed that the story was “relevant.”  In reality, what Dawkins said was that the story was “widely believed” (TGD, 239); a far different statement from what Marshall says.

 

Marshall’s failure to report Dawkins’ argument accurately looks like a deliberate attempt to mislead, a much worse error than the trivial one that Dawkins made.

 

2.  Apparently Marshall thinks it’s funny when Ann Coulter says we should invade certain countries, “kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” (176)  Well, Christianity does have a pretty long history of that sort of behavior, but not everyone was amused.

 

3.  In a survey Marshall took at a conservative Christian church, “only 20 percent of these highly committed believers agreed that homosexual acts should be prosecuted. (Far fewer of the evangelical Presbyterians did.)” (180-181)  Gee, whatever happened to the universality of the C-H-R-I-S-T- inspired viewpoint? (103)  It seems to have evaporated in less than 80 pages.  Marshall’s flip-flopping between apoplectic outrage and placid indifference seems quite remarkable.  I wonder if that’s a staple of Christian apologetics.

 

4.  I don’t want to make fun of Marshall for doing some actual research here, the way Marshall made fun of Marc Hauser for trying to do similar research. (103)  But I do think it’s interesting to point out the apparent inconsistency.  Why does Marshall rip into Hauser for doing research that conceptually seems pretty much like Marshall’s research?  Perhaps Marshall simply resents Hauser’s superior credentials and influence.

 

5.  Marshall says, “Just a generation or two ago, neo-pagans and Enlightenment atheists killed millions of ‘subhuman’ Jews and ‘cow devils and snake spirits.’” (182)  Naturally Marshall provides no citation for that.  Perhaps he doesn’t want anyone to have a chance to check if there might not have been more Christians involved in those slaughters than “neo-pagans and Enlightenment atheists.”

 

And what the heck is a “cow devil”?  Is that like a “black cow”?  My mom used to make us black cows in summer.  They were awesome!  Why would anyone want to kill a root beer float?

 

 

Chapter 11: Can Atheism Make the World Better? (pp. 189-206)

 

In this chapter Marshall puts atheism under the spotlight, but the interrogation seems more than a bit amateurish.

 

1.  Marshall asks, “What have atheism and Darwinian ethics done for the human race in general?” (190)  Before trying to answer a question like that, it would be nice to have a definition of the key terms.  Unfortunately, Marshall neglects to define “Darwinian ethics,” nor does he explain how it differs from Christian ethics.  For all we know, Darwinian ethics and Christian ethics may be virtually identical.

 

And for all the talk about atheism, I don’t recall Marshall providing a rigorous definition of that either.  That seems rather sloppy, to say the least, but it fits in with the general sloppiness of the book. 

 

2.  Marshall continues, “Are there signs that, once freed from the ‘delusions’ our ancestors suffered under, the human race will breathe a big sigh of relief and finally make progress? Or does the ‘death of God’ mean, as Dostoevsky warned, that ‘everything [including Gulags] is lawful?’”

 

Marshall seems to be implying that “everything” wasn’t already lawful even before the “death of God.”  We all know what a big laugh that is!

 

3.  I previously pointed out Marshall’s dishonesty in calling the cause of the Holocaust “simple.” (194) (See Section I.)  What makes his dishonesty seem even more contemptible is that even the primary source he cited, Richard Weikart, explicitly disagreed with such a conclusion.

 

4.  Marshall continues harping on the alleged role of Darwinism in the Holocaust.  When Dawkins points out that biological science shows that we all share a common humanity with members of other races, Marshall rips into him, saying that the Nazis did know about the “deeper evolutionary law of kill or be killed.”  Marshall says, “Dawkins should come to grips with the history of the ideas Weikart relates.” (196)

 

Wow, Marshall’s rhetoric is really challenging, isn’t it.  Too bad it’s just empty posturing.  Three things expose the fatuity of Marshall’s little con game.

 

First, it’s actually Marshall who needs to come to grips with what Weikart said.  Here’s what Weikart actually says:  “It would be foolish to blame Darwinism for the Holocaust ….” (“From Darwin to Hitler;” p. 232)  If Marshall wants to use Weikart as a cudgel for beating Dawkins, THEN HE OUGHT TO READ WHAT THE HECK WEIKART ACTUALLY SAID!  Sheesh!

 

Second, not only does Marshall not seem to have a very good grip on what Weikart said, he also doesn’t seem to have a very good grip on Darwinism either.  Here’s what Darwin himself said:  “As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.” (“Descent of Man,” 1st ed., 1:100-101).  So, Marshall’s pretentious posturing notwithstanding, the reality is that Darwin himself saw moral progress in the extension of sympathy to all of humanity. Unfortunately, Hitler and the Christians who followed him were as ignorant about Darwinism as Marshall seems to be, and the Jews suffered mightily because of it.  

 

If Marshall wants to use Darwinism as a cudgel for beating Dawkins, THEN HE OUGHT TO READ WHAT THE HECK DARWIN ACTUALLY SAID!  Sheesh!

 

Finally, perhaps the highlight of the inanity of Marshall’s argument here is the fact that he seems to be clueless not only about what Weikart and Darwin said, he even seems to be clueless about what he himself says.  Marshall rips into Dawkins for saying that biological science shows that “each of us shares a common humanity with members of other races,” but then he himself claims on page 212 that the Bible’s affirmation of the “unity … of humanity” has now been “definitively affirmed by genetics.”

 

The fatuity of Marshall’s attack on Dawkins is simply mindboggling.  He rips into Dawkins for allegedly not coming to grips with Weikart and Darwin, when it’s actually Marshall himself who appears to be badly misreading both of them.  And then just a few pages after his blistering attack, Marshall blithely concedes that Dawkins was right all along about the unity of human life.  Well, if Dawkins was right all along, then why is Marshall insulting him?

 

What the heck is going on here?  Is Marshall simply too ignorant to understand the issues, or is he being deliberately dishonest?

 

5.  Responding to Dawkins’ claim that he couldn’t think of a single war fought in the name of atheism, Marshall says, “In fact, atheism played a central part in the ideology of one or both sides of most of the great wars of the century.” (200)  That’s another bait-and-switch argument.  The issue is not whether atheists fight, the issue is whether they fight *in the name of atheism.*  Once again, Marshall seems to be beating a straw man.

 

 

Chapter 12: Consilience (pp. 207-220)

 

1.  The last chapter contains what appears to be a bunch of poetic musings.  There are many ways to characterize poetic musings.  “Rigorous argument” is not the first one that comes to mind.

 

2.  Marshall complains, “It’s not that [atheism] doesn’t explain anything. Rather, it can’t explain everything.” (209)

 

But as Landon Hedrick points out, it’s important to define “atheism.”  Marshall sometimes seems to use the term to mean “the lack of belief in God,” and that’s important, because the mere lack of belief in something is not an explanatory concept in the first place, which makes Marshall’s complaint seem largely irrelevant.

 

3.  Marshall says that “‘fear of the Lord’ is the … foundation and goal of reasoning.” (210)  Well, it’s nice to know the role that naked emotion (and a rather unpleasant one at that!) plays in apologetics.

 

4.  Marshall indicates that he frequently has to answer “I don’t know” to questions about meaning and purpose. (216)  Hey, wait a minute.  Didn’t Marshall complain just a few pages earlier about atheism not being able to explain everything? (209) How come Marshall complains about atheism in that regard but not about Christianity?

 

5.  Marshall claims that “‘brights’ cheerfully midwifed the birth of every modern form of barbarism … in the name of science: Social Darwinism, eugenics, abortion, the new infanticide, free love, LSD, gas chambers, the Gulag.” (219)

 

Naturally, Marshall provides no citations for much of that, plus he conveniently leaves out the fact that both Social Darwinism and eugenics were widely popular among Christians.  And anyway, didn’t Marshall himself claim that Christianity invented science?  That being the case, why doesn’t Marshall blame Jesus for Hitler and the Gulag?  There seem to be some worrisome implications in Marshall’s arguments.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Even though I’m a Christian myself and think that religious faith is a beautiful and precious thing, I still think Marshall’s book is thoroughly stupid and thoroughly dishonest.

 

Like I said before, I’ve already notified Marshall himself and will notify Harvest House Publishers and Dr. Paul Griffiths at the Duke Divinity School about this blog to give them a chance to point out any errors I may have made.  So far, Marshall seems completely unable to identify any significant objections to most of what I’ve said.  In fact, some of Marshall’s responses were not only feeble, but actually amplified the original dishonesty; so I’m inclined to take that as evidence that my objections are largely on target.  It will be interesting to see if Harvest House Publishers or Dr. Paul Griffiths will have any more success in defending Marshall’s arguments than Marshall himself had.