Here is some very good, detailed advice for anyone who is considering debating Creationists or Young Earth Creationists. David Rice has made an exhaustive examination of Creationists tacticts and provides these important points to consider.

csmith@omnifest.uwm.edu:
I have been in touch with frice@raids.org (Fredric L. Rice) concerning an event being planned in the Milwaukee area for August 2, and he suggested you in this way: "hit him up for advice."

So, if you have any advice at all, a debate is being planned by a Milwaukee - based org., Freethought Society and also First Amendment Teach-In (on omnifest.uwm.edu, c/o first@omnifest.uwm.edu or croth@omnifest.uwm.edu) which will involve a local radiologist from Medical College of Wisconsin (also biophysicist) who is representing the creationism school of thought.

David Rice:
It is generally a bad idea to agree to a debate with young-earth Creationists.

Since your proposed opponent is a radiologist and biophysicist, I would assume that she or he will probably discourse on biopoesis / biogenesis --- be aware that such topics are NOT in any way related to evolution and Evolutionary Theory.

If your opponent agreed to debate evolution, she or he will have to actually debate EVOLUTION, not what she or he claims is evolution and Evolutionary Theory. Creationists always, and deliberately, choose to confuse the start of life (biogenesis / biopoesis) with how life changes over time (evolution).

They also deliberately choose to confuse the fact of evolution (what is observed, i.e. evolution) with the Theory of Evolution (i.e. our best explanation for the evolution we observe).

Given the settings that these "debates" usually occur in (i.e. churches) and the extraordinary efforts creationists go through to stuff the audience with shills, I would bet on the Creationist winning the "debate" nearly every time.

The scientist / informed lay person debates within constraints that Creationists do not bother themselves with, i.e. sticking to the facts.

• 1) scientists limit themselves to what is known, and they (generally) clearly state what is their opinion and speculation when they stray from what is known.

  Creationists allow themselves wild speculation, baseless assertions, lies, deciet, and a belief in magic to defend their dogmas.

• 2) scientists discard obsolete data when new data supplants it with better evidence and explanitory power.

  Creationists discard every piece of data that does not mesh with their pre-conceived dogmas.

• 3) scientists acknowledge the fact that many questions remain unknown, and indeed may be unknowable.

  Creationists manufacture ANY possible "answer" they can imagine that supports their dogmas.

• 4) scientists expect their listeners to think and hear critically, and to know enough about the subject to arrive at the reasoned, valid conclusions.

  Creationists DEPEND upon the ignorance of their audience. They avoid properly set up debates in front of real scientists.

• 5) scientists debate because they find the subject to be fascinating and they want to educate the audience of not only science, but also the threat to education Creationism poses.

  Creationists "debate" because they believe it is "saving souls" from their Hell. They therefore believe they have a far bigger stake in "winning" than the scientist.

• 6) scientists do not expect Creationist debate opponents to lie (unless the scientist is well-read on Creationist tactics.)

  Creationists expect scientists to tell the truth, thus the Creationist will not be surprised by anything the scientist brings up. I dare say that if scientists started to be as dishonest as Creationists, these "debates" would be "won" by the scientists: however, the scientific community would scream bloody murder (unlike the Creationist community, whom remain silent over their Creationist "debaters" lies).

• 7) scientists do not have the time to "debate" the Creationists.

  Creationists have lots and lots of time, since they do no work, perform no research, and are supported by their cults. They gleefully anounce that the reason scientists do not "debate" them is because the scientists are afraid of them.

• 8) scientists must limit themselves to a very shallow overview of evolution and Evolutionary Theory, out of time restraints and complexity of the subject.

  Creationists need only make assertions that their audience will buy because they sound nice and gives the audience a warm, fuzzy feeling. For every assertion by the Creationists that the scientist demonstrates false, the Creationist utters many dozens of more falsehoods. There is no way the scientist has time to correct them all.

I think nearly all of the big-name Creationists who debate are aware of the fact that most of their claims are false. I think, with good reason, that Creationists believe their lies are for "the greater glory of god," and are thus justified --- they believe they are "saving sinners" (i.e. non-Fundamentalist Christians).

The "debates" that Creationists set up and run are not conducive to debate. When a scientists or informed lay individual is allowed to address every point the Creationists bring up (which is possible in written debates and in properly controlled debates, but never in the "debates" Creationists sponsor), the Creationists nearly always lose.

The solution is to set up a proper debate, where the Creationist cannot do The Gish Gallop. Such a debate would follow the general structure of:

• 0) A specific topic must be agreed upon. Most Creationists will =NEVER= agree to debate Creationism: they will attack what they claim to be "evolution." You will find it nearly impossible to find a Creationists who will debate Creationism.

• 1) A non-Creationist (i.e. fair) moderator must be selected. The moderator keeps time and is granted authority to interrupt when any given speaker goes over the time limit.

  Also (and this is very important) the moderator must interrupt when any given speaker wanders away from the topic. Creationists love to pontificate about cosmology, biopoesis, random and chaotic systems, theology. . . . NONE of which is topical to evolution and Evolutionary Theory. One must pick a theme of the debate, then MAKE THE CREATIONISTS STICK TO THAT THEME.

  And also, some Creationists attack their opponents personally, instead of addressing the topic. They'll ask their opponent "Tell me something: do you believe in god?" and then demand an answer (this is supposed to turn a fundamentalist audience against the scientists or informed lay person, since the proper answer ("That is not relevant to the debate.") is seen as a excuse. The moderator must field these irrelevant jabs and jives, =NOT= the scientist or informed lay person.

• 2) Coin toss to see who goes first. (If the Creationists wins the toss, that means god was paying attention; if the scientist wins the toss, Satan was.)

• 3) First speaker is allowed ten minutes to make a presentation. Maybe 15 minutes is allowable if there is time available.

• 4) Opponent is granted five minutes, and must ONLY address what the first speaker said.

• 5) First speaker is given two minutes for any comment.

• 6) Second speaker is given ten minutes to make a presentation. (Or 15 minutes.)

• 7) Opponent is granted five minutes, and must ONLY address what the first speaker said.

• 8) Second speaker is given two minutes for any comment.

• 9) Repeat the process as often as time allows.

Creationists will not agree to such a debate because it minimizes the possibility of The Gish Gallop: one MUST address, in the five minute sections, what the other person has said. And during the ten or fifteen minute sections, Creationists can only slip in a few falsehoods, which the opponents' five minute rebuttal and the opponents' next ten or fifteen minutes may address.

Also, Creationists will not agree to a fair moderator. They will not agree with granting a moderator the authority to interrupt a non-topical discourse.

Given these concerns, it is damn difficult to get a debate going. A scientists or informed lay person who does not EXPECT the lies and deciet Creationists =ALWAYS= (in my experience) rely upon will be eatten alive in a debate run by Creationists. Far better that such a debate never be accepted.

If the scientists or informed lay person still wants to accept the challenge, she or he must first read any books and pamphlets the Creationist opponent has written. It is a good thing that Creationists seldome come up with any new material: they generally stick to the same tired and tried song-and-dance trick-pony show. They'll bring up the already well-debunked "Second law of thermodynamics" bullshit, the "Evolution is religion not science" bullshit, the "Shrinking Sun" bullshit, the "Missing helium" bullshit, the "Not Enough Lunar Dust" bullshit, the "Salt In The Ocean Too Little" bullshit, the "Mount Saint Hellens" bullshit, and several dozen other non-topical, ill-informed, dazzle-them-with-bullshit claims.

So you're asking me for advice. :-) My advice is to:

• 1) avoid any debates where Creationists run the show.

• 2) require the debate to be held in some place other than a cult's buildings.

• 3) know the Creationist opponent's common assertions before the debate.

• 4) find a fair moderator.

• 5) get the conditions of the debate in writting, with both sides sign.

• 6) DEPEND upon the Creationist debater to be dishonest, deceptive, and insulting.

• 7) do NOT defend: always attack.

Point 7 is most important. Too many previous debates have the scientists or informed lay person defending evolution and Evolutionary Theory against the false straw-man claims of the Creationists --- what a horrible, deliberate waste of time! The Creationists attack what is NOT evolution, nor Evolutionary Theory, and then the scientists or lay person must waste all of her or his time explaining to the audience that what the Creationists attacked was not evolution, nor was it what Evolutionary Theory states.

Not nearly enough times have the Creationists been forced to support their claims. Far better that the scientist or lay person go on the offensive.

And that's a big problem. Creationists have no moral or ethical scruples about being offensive --- they actually believe that they are doing the work of their god(s), and thus the social contract between people is null. The scientist or informed lay person, however, is generally polite and respectful. I've noticed that extremely often, Creationists will interrupt and insult their opponents, but seldome do their opponents interrupt or insult them.