How Harmful Is False Scientific Information?
Surprisingly, in a recent case, the court said it was a crime.
At 3:32 A.M. on 6 April 2009, a magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck the town of L’Aquila, Italy, killing 309 people, injuring 1500 people, temporarily displacing 65,000, and destroying 20,000 buildings. Days before, experts on Italy’s Major Risk Commission had reassured the town’s citizens that the past 4 months of frightening earth tremors indicated that stresses beneath the town were being harmlessly released—“a good thing,” they said. The experts also claimed that future tremors would be no stronger than those already felt. The four scientists, two engineers, and one governmental official who provided the incorrect analysis and false reassurances of seismic risk were each put on trial, convicted of manslaughter, fined 1.5 million dollars (1.1 million Euros), and sentenced to 6 years in prison.1 On appeal 2 years later, five of the six convictions were overturned.
After the initial sentence, most scientists following this case were outraged that scientists were punished for simply giving advice. An editorial in Nature stated, “The verdict is perverse and the sentence is ludicrous.” 2 Five-thousand scientists from dozens of countries signed an open letter to the President of Italy, calling the charges “unfounded,” because earthquakes cannot be reliably predicted, and scientists will be less likely to give policy makers technical advice if punishment could result. Does this verdict set a dangerous precedence? Is science on trial?
We all make mistakes, but when those holding positions of trust make mistakes, misinform, are not scientifically up-to-date, or don’t acknowledge their uncertainties, consequences may follow. The principle is simple: With authority comes responsibility. Officials should be as concerned about doing their jobs correctly as about expecting respect from others. This applies to political leaders, military leaders, and teachers—including those teaching false information on the creation-evolution issue.
Providing false or superficial information on the creation-evolution issue does not suddenly kill people, but if you read "What Are the Social Consequences of Belief in Evolution?" on pages 551–553, you will see that millions of lives have been lost as a result of evolution and many more have been adversely affected. No law exists against providing such misinformation, but that does not make it or negligence acceptable. In fact, most people would agree that providing misinformation, especially to young minds, is deplorable—even if it is only due to a sloppy examination of the evidence or “following the party line.” But most people providing this misinformation truly believe it, so isn’t ignorance of the facts an excuse? Not if the misinformer uses his or her scientific status as a reason for others to believe the misinformation. So the issue becomes, “Who is propagating poor science, and what can be done about it?”
A common military tactic is “search and destroy.” Infantry troops are used to search for and locate the opposition. Then, powerful and appropriate weapons, such as gunships, artillery, or bombers are called in. A peaceful variation of this tactic, can be used to combat false ideas about evolution. If you know an outspoken evolutionist who uses his or her position to convince others that evolution is correct and creation and the global flood never happened, you can perform the “search” function. Others will do the rest. Here’s how it will work.
If you carefully study the scientific case for creation and the flood, as explained in this book, and present some of this case to the evolutionist, you can call our office at 602-956-6880. We will mail you at no cost the latest draft of the next edition of this book (in a PDF format on a CD-ROM). You may duplicate it as often as you like for friends and the evolutionist. Urge the evolutionist to participate in one of the two debate offers described on pages 570–571. The first offer (a written exchange) deals with creation, and the second (an oral debate) deals with the flood. Notice, religion is not allowed in either exchange—only science. We will inform you of all communications we have with the evolutionist.
Media outlets (television, radio, print) that present evolution (or any of its many tenants) as a fact, based on some authority, should urge their “expert” to participate in either debate. Most media outlets strive to avoid misinformation, so they may start to question the competence of their “experts,” especially those who decline a strictly scientific debate.
Scientific incompetence, whether by an Italian risk commission or by teachers and professors—even if unintentional—can have serious consequences. Ignoring the incompetence only perpetuates it. Will you search?