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:
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:
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.
Creationists allow themselves wild speculation, baseless assertions, lies,
deciet, and a belief in magic to defend their dogmas.
Creationists discard every piece of data that does not mesh with their
pre-conceived dogmas.
Creationists manufacture ANY possible "answer" they can imagine
that supports their dogmas.
Creationists DEPEND upon the ignorance of their audience. They avoid
properly set up debates in front of real scientists.
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.
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).
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
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."
It is generally a bad idea to agree to a debate with young-earth
Creationists.
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page.