Darwin advocacy often gives the appearance of a racket, a confidence scam, a game of Three-card Monte. Go read or listen to John Stonestreet’s excellent Breakpoint commentary reflecting on the current cover story in National Geographic, "The War on Science." The magazine links and absurdly lampoons a number of skeptical views, as if they were all of a piece. The cover text reads, giving examples "anti-science":

Climate Change Does Not Exist.

Evolution Never Happened.

The Moon Landing Was Faked.

Vaccinations Can Lead to Autism.

Genetically Modified Food Is Evil.

Now read the brief and informative Wikipedia article on confidence tricks, including the classic "stages of the con," the carefully ordered succession of interactions among con man, shill (accomplice), and mark (victim). Tell me if that doesn’t ring a bell. In the context of evolution, it goes something like this:

Con: "You’re pro-science, am I right?"

Mark: "Oh, sure I love science. Can’t get enough of it."

Con: "So you’re not anti-science, correct?"

Mark: "I don’t know what that means exactly, but like I said, I love science."

Con: "Well, for example, you agree that the United States landed on the Moon, right? Because there are some loons who doubt that."

Mark: "What? You’re kidding. That’s ridiculous."

Con: "OK, just wondering. I mean, you said you’re pro-science. So you’re not one of those anti-vaxxers, right?"

Mark: "Definitely not. I mean, I have some Facebook friends who are pretty voluble about that. They think it causes autism. But we absolutely vaccinate our kids. It’s the responsible thing to do."

Con: "Good, good. That’s fine, because those guys are nuts. And, just curious, you’re not one of those ‘climate skeptic’ crazies, right?"

Mark: "What do you mean, ‘crazies’? I know there are some climatologists and other thoughtful people who think global warming has been hyped."

Con: "What! I thought you said you’re pro-science!"

Mark: "I am."

Con: "Don’t you know the scientific consensus believes in human-induced catastrophic global warming?"

Mark: "Alright, alright, you win."

Con: "Finally, evolution. You’re not a ‘Darwin skeptic’ are you?"

Mark: "Doesn’t that depend on what you mean by evolution? ‘Evolution’ in what sense?"

Con: "Never mind."

Mark: "Well I know from my reading that the word can mean various things. Microevolution, macroevolution, universal common descent, the sole sufficiency of the Darwinian mechanism for explaining the development of complex life forms."

Con: "I said never mind. You sound like a creationist. You said you’re pro-science. So, you think the whole universe is less than 10,000 years old? You think cavemen rode around on dinosaurs?"

Mark: "No, of course not!"

Con: "Alright, then. So you’re pro-science, and you believe evolution happened. Good for you."

Mark: "But aren’t there are a bunch of very different questions here that you’re wrapping up into one overstuffed burrito as if they were all the same? I mean, Moon landing, vaccinations, global warming, age of the universe, evolution in its several different meanings. Shouldn’t separate questions be considered separately?"

Shill: "Oh hey guys, I don’t mean to interrupt your conversation, but the latest issue of National Geographic just came in the mail, a very distinguished popular scientific journal with a long and storied publication history. It says here some people think ‘evolution never happened.’ I guess those are the same ones who think climate change doesn’t exist and the Moon landing was faked."

Con: "See? I told you. Now do you believe in evolution or not?"

Shill: "Why are you asking him that? Don’t tell me you’re one of those Intelligent Design Creationists! I thought after centuries of study the question of whether nature gives scientific evidence of design was finally settled by a judge in Pennsylvania back in ’05. I heard the judge was even appointed by President George W. Bush, so he should know. You always seemed like a smart guy. Are you one of those anti-science dummies?"

Con: "Tell me, yes or no. Do you think evolution never happened?"

Mark: "No, no, it’s just… Oh forget it. Yes, I believe in ‘evolution’!"

Am I exaggerating? Not by much, if at all. This morning, Casey Luskin gave a very concrete illustration of an evolution scam — the bait-and-switch technique, deployed to cast doubt on the (accurate) contention that Darwinian theory is controversial among mainstream scientists.

Understand what I’m saying. Evolutionary biology is not a scam, but some Darwin defenders employ classic tricks from the arsenal of professional hustlers. If the science were as ironclad as we’re supposed to believe, why don’t they debate us on the science?

Image: Three-card Monte, by ZioDave (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ziodave/25510393) [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.