Two kinds of dissent
The reason for comparing denialism and creationism in the first place is because of the fact that both go against scientific consensus. The observation that climate is changing and that greenhouse gases are to blame has become the paradigm of climate science in the last decades, and evolution has been biology’s paradigm for at least 150 years, especially considering the fact that before Darwin published the Origin of Species, there already was a strong sentiment for any mechanism that could explain why different species would be related.

The time difference here illustrates that denialism can be expected to have a stronger foothold within the scientific community. The climate paradigm probably hasn’t been around long enough to be as dominant as evolution. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that climate deniers can find sympathizers within accepted scientific institutions; an indication that denialism hasn’t separated itself completely from the scientific community. Creationism, however, has become a separate community, with its own magazines, institutions and conferences. There is even a case of a creationist, Andrew Snelling, having to maintain two ‘scientific identities’ to participate in the different communities. Not accepting evolution has made it almost impossible to communicate with life or earth scientists, an observation Snelling easily confirms, without realizing how indicative this is of the robustness of evolution as a paradigm.

Popular sciences
So the both denialism and creationism behave like paradigm-dissenting fields, albeit in different phases of development. A second similarity is how they relate to professional science. Michael Ruse, in his book The Evolution-Creation Struggle, makes a distinction between pseudoscience, popular science and professional science. I find these classes useful here, because both creationism and denialism seem to want to operate purely on the level of popular science. There really are very few scientific papers that debate the physical basis of the climate paradigm; the often quoted Science article by Naomi Oreskes has for the largest part held up to scrutiny. There is no true ‘denialist research program’; the closest some papers come is by suggesting that factors like solar influence could have yet-unknown effects or that their variability is larger than previously thought. There are no research papers presenting evidence that greenhouse gases are not currently warming the climate.

It might make sense to postulate that there is a sceptical rather than a denialist movement within professional science; a group of scientists that, being unable to convincingly falsify the accepted theories of climate science, is tending to a different paradigm and that will either disappear when the scientists do not find successors, form a new community or abandon its position and be subsumed by the largest community. Only the second option leads to a true program of research that could actually contain the ideas of the climate denialists.

Currently, denialism is not formulated coherently enough to produce a paradigm. Some denialists say the climate isn’t warming. Others say it is, but that solar influence is the cause for it. Some say the IPCC reports are unreliable because they are manipulated to make it look like the climate is changing, others say the reports do not convincingly argue the climate is changing. These matters, however, do not matter in popular science, which is where denialism finds its arena. Denialist popular media expressions are easy to find. Rather than bring forward a general argument about climate, the documentaries, articles, blogs and videos about denialism try to promote a general sentiment that ‘the science is not trustworthy’. Such a message does not require internal coherence. In fact, incoherence makes the message even more immune to scientific arguments, because they’re so difficult to bring in line with the exacting manner in which scientists formulate their conclusions.

Creationism is also largely sold through popular media. My impression is that the selling of DVDs has become the primary way to distribute information for creationists (apart from the internet), more than books . Creationism is not making a serious effort to gain a foothold in mainstream science. Related to its development as a community, creationism has been able to formulate its own research questions, like Siegfried Scherer’s theories about the basic ‘kinds’ of ducks, or William Dembski’s attempt to formulate specified complexity as a recognizable phenomenon in nature. However, these efforts have not been followed through as is necessary for a true research program. Creationists don’t seem to be interested in spending their considerable funds that way. Kent Hovind has something he calls a ‘theory’, but he doesn’t dream of testing or even applying it. Rather than not being able to support a research community, creationism doesn’t want to do so in the first place, for reasons I will explain later. Like denialism, creationism has some coherency problems, but creationists are very effective at formulating a common ground that they all agree on. The typical creationist magazine requires commitment to a series of viewpoints, indicating that creationists know they share enough common ground to communicate and work out differences within a common paradigm. Major groups of creationists – young earthers, old earthers and ID theorists, can be recognized both by outsiders and insiders. The terms of communication and relationships within creationism are pretty much clear to everyone.

Politics
So the similarities between denialists and creationists in producing research results are only superficially similar; neither go far beyond producing popular science, but the particulars are different. Their goals, however, fit well to their ways of spreading information. Both denialism and creationism have political goals that require support from a significant number of non-scientists. Climate denialism tries to reduce support for climate mitigation measures. Creationism tries to limit the teaching of evolution in schools.

These political goals trump the wish to add to the body of scientific knowledge. This could be why both creationists and denialists frequently try to dissuade people from concerning themselves with science at all, when they try to make large groups of scientists suspect. The IPCC is portrayed as something bordering on a conspiring group, that tries to make working impossible for scientists who do not agree with ‘alarmist’ conclusions. Creationists accuse scientists accepting evolution of clinging on to it like a religion and not acknowledging a supposed ‘controversy’. The groups have nothing to gain by continuing research, since their minds about their political goals are pretty much made up. This hierarchy of politics and popular science works to the disadvantage of any development of their scientific communities. In the case of climate change denialism, this disadvantage is less pronounced, because their political goals are better served by having a respected group of scientists serve it. In the end, politicians will need some kind of experts to refer to and the large-scale goals of climate denialism make shifting the public trust from, for example, the IPCC, to other experts, a more viable strategy.

Creationism, on the other hand, is mainly held up for religious groups and to reassure their worldviews. Small-scale goals, like the school curriculum, hardly necessitate large scientific institutions or a foothold in major universities. Creationism exists for people who are predisposed for creationism, but denialism exists for a range of goals beyond the immediate concerns of its adherents.

The direction of debates
So I see broad similarities in three aspects: dissent from the paradigm, level of professional science and political goals. Do these similarities ensure a similar behaviour of the adherents? This would be expected. One thing I would look for is a general disdain for scientific references; neither group can use them to its advantage and therefore has to resort to ‘quote mining’ and references in popular science. Another thing that I think will happen is that denialism is going to organize itself more, possibly around a think tank or a media publication like a magazine or website. From such a central point of communication, the adherents can agree on common ground and their own principal points of dissent. The latter would also serve to practice internal communication within the group. Depending on the professionalism such a group is able to bring forward, they might produce a coherent research program that will eventually be able to contribute to science. This also depends on how the modern climate science paradigm deals with its own problems.

Creationism will probably not contribute to science in the future. Intelligent Design is more indicative of a retreating paradigm than a mature one, because it tends to reformulate itself as a philosophical position that can coexist with any kind of scientific experiment or observation. The soft version of Intelligent Design isn’t really different from untestable guided evolution and this does not, to most scientists, represent a different paradigm, because the rules for doing research don’t change.

Debates with climate change deniers are similar to debates with creationists in terms of literature used by the denialists. The difference, at the moment, is in the background from the denialists: they are unlikely to reason from a completely different, non-negotiable viewpoint, because they don’t have a paradigm. My conclusion is that this is mainly because of the phase that climate change denialism is in its development, rather than a true consequence of scientific credibility.

Mousetraps remind me of Michael Behe, even though I never read his book (I’m rather lazy when creationist books are concerned – there never seems to be a shortage of believers willing to summarize them). Behe argued that a mousetrap is an example of an irreducibly complex system. Now, the phrase ‘irreducible complexity’ is commonly found among creationists in different contexts, but Behe is actually quite clear on what he means with it: it’s a system consisting of multiple parts working together for a function where, if one of the parts is removed, the whole system no longer functions. A mousetrap no longer works if you take away one of its parts. Evolution, Behe argues, would require that all parts came together in a single variation-producing event. The odds of a mousetrap just coming into existence from loose parts is negligible. Therefore, it must have been designed. Extending this analogy to biological systems that fit the definition of irreducible complexity is supposed to lead to the conclusion that life itself has also been designed.

Behe is of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, that much is clear. His arguments have been refuted extensively, but still it must be said: I am rather grateful that Michael Behe exists. Really, I am.

He is a scientist, but also a opinion-producer looking for a podium, and as such frequently debates other scientists. This has had an interesting effect on Behe. He has been forced to outline his position rather precisely, for example in an essay called Irreducible Complexity – Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution. In it, he makes clear that according to him, only irreducibly complex systems are an indication of a designer, the rest has evolved. Since the definition of an irreducibly complex system is rather exacting, this means that Behe effectively accepts the majority of evolutionary theory. He does not object to common descent, nor the age of the earth. By defining his position, Behe has shown himself to be only half a creationist, perhaps even less. The good thing about that is that many lay followers of Behe follow his line of reasoning without questioning. Showing where that leads can be a powerful argument.

I would propose a scale for creationism, with normal science at the far left and people like Kent Hovind on the extreme right. On such a scale, Behe would fall somewhere in between the middle and the far left, normal science.

It’s an interesting thought to see where creationists or near-creationists would be positioned on the scale. Closer to normal science, but still with some slight distance, would be Arie van den Beukel, a Dutch author who wrote that the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium was created because not enough transitional fossils had been found. Squarely in the middle I would put people like Stephen Meyer and William Dembski. To their right come the Old Earth Creationists, the OECs (of whom I cannot name any examples) and the Young Earth Creationists (YECs) who can produce science of they want to, like Andrew Snelling. Beyond that we enter the realm of completely uncontrolled fantasy, with Ray Comfort and eventually Kent Hovind.

My prediction is that any attempt by creationists to enter the realm of serious scientific debate will cause their arguments to move to the left on such a scale. They have to be able to apply scientific methods, define their positions and participate in scientific communication, if not perform actual research. The Dutch Intelligent Design movement, formerly spearheaded by Cees Dekker, is an example of such a retreating creationist paradigm. I will describe it more thoroughly in a later blog, but will point out that Dekker no longer supports ID. This makes him one example of creationism disappearing through scientific debate. Michael Behe presents another example, taking a place on a different area of the scale but definitely showing the same directional trend.

Yes, I’m quite grateful Behe exists. That is, if only I had someone to be grateful towards.