Michael Shermer vs. Eric Hovind

As a former creationist of the weirdo Xian flavor (e. g. the Hovinds), I am certain Shermer not only understood his opponent all too well, but more importantly, had no difficulty in "dissecting" each and every one of Hovind's points replete in their breathtaking inanity. Should anyone doubt this, may I suggest that you read his columns at Scientific American and Skeptic, and, of course, his laudable - and mercifully terse - book, "Why Darwin Matters".

Eric Hovind tried the 'Gish Gallop,' but Schermer did an excellent job in countering by not letting him go on and on.

Eric Hovind is a "poopy head".

Michael Shermer didn't do so well against "Dr" Kent Hovind himself (from a video I watched). Even though I agree with Shermer's arguments, I find Hovind to be the better debater, or at least the better speaker. And we all know that debates are just public performance arts.

How about giving people some idea how long the podcast is?

Danny: +1. Exactly right, my friend.

Shermer is a nice guy, and he gives an entertaining speech/lecture sometimes, but he's really a pitiful debater.

Once again the Hovind argument boils down to "because the bible says so". Preaching to the choir, indeed.

Danny said: Michael Shermer didn't do so well against "Dr" Kent Hovind himself (from a video I watched). Even though I agree with Shermer's arguments, I find Hovind to be the better debater, or at least the better speaker. And we all know that debates are just public performance arts.

What is Eric Hovind doing in public? If I were him, I would be ashamed of showing my face, let alone taking on for myself the "holy work" where my dad left off. Does he honestly believe his father isn't a deceitful little parasite?

I listened to the debate a couple days ago after PZ linked it from his blog (at least I think that's the rabbit trail I found it on...)

Hovind: There are no transitional fossils. The Grand Canyon is a remnant of biblical flood. Pretty goofy stuff and well debunked by Schermer IMHO. Also, a HEAVY emphasis on moving YEC 'products' and websites.

Listen to the podcast and tell me you don't think that Hovind sounds almost exactly like Ted Haggard in that clip he did with Richard Dawkins. These rightwing pastors are cookie cutter ignorant and must all go to the same school of sophistry, because it's very hard to tell one wingnut from another.

Disclaimer: I have no idea if Hovind is 'so not gay' like Ted.

Enjoy.

Please, please do note how long "casts" like this are, if it's not noted in the link. I had some laundry to fold and some papers to organize so I did have time to listen.

I think the only thing Hovind did better was speak louder so you couldn't always hear Schermer's comments.
Also Hovind offered "freebies" to callers to his office. He gave the number out loudly, too. A 2 hour CD that would answer ALL of anyone's questions. That's something, like the DI's new F+E site, that's a direct appeal to the average non-scientist Janes and Joes. Touted his Dad's 18 hour seminar available for free too.

Hovind's diatribe really makes me wonder how anyone can truly believe that creationist line. Dinosaurs as "dragons"! Loved it!!
Be sure to listen to the comments by the hosts at the end too.

I've only listened to about 35%-40% of this, and Hovid is hard to stomach. Now he's talking about how The Grand Canyon couldn't have formed over millions of years by The Colorado river. And he didn't even try to go after Shermer's description of the difference between a flood plain, and canyons carved by erosion.

"Anyone who thinks it’s worthwhile debating creationists..."

dealing with creationists is a specialist skill that involves dealing with their peculiar emotional resistance to being swayed by logic. many people who are extremely competent at biology or scientific philosophy aren't particularly good in these discussions, and it's very tempting to blame the creationists when logical superiority doesn't win the day.

while the creationists are, ultimately, entirely at fault for being WRONG (or "not even wrong", as the neat description of total cluelessness has it), my concern is that expressions like "pointless" and "arguing with a brick wall" tend to arise when people don't have the skill set to keep creationists on point and demonstrate superiority to an uninformed audience. the example that comes to mind with Shermer (who writes extremely cogent material) was a radio discussion with Dembski where the presenter was clearly left with the impression of "well, now you've heard the two irreconcilable sides of an argument". Shermer was technically correct, but when both sides argue to a standstill IMO it's a loss for Team Logic.

386: "Shermer should have told him he was a maroon and a huckster"

I find this attitude particularly obnoxious. it's the complete opposite of how you combat the religious position that the reason that scientists hold all these incredibly threatening beliefs is because they hate God and christians

I really enjoy reading Shermer's stuff, and I have a lot of respect for him, but Hovind was running circles around him.

It was painful to listen to. I'd like to see Eric Hovind go toe to toe with Dawkins or Hitchens.

Just as I expected; like daddy, like son. One more pathetic example of a homeschool brainwashing. I would seriously question if that moron (Hovind) has ever even touched a real science book in his life, let alone actually read one - in any discipline. Thirty-four minutes of Hovind babble. The poor thing should not be let out of the house alone. My tummy is still turning. He has obviously been 'absorbed.' Good work, Kent.

Aaron said: ...but Hovind was running circles around him.

I found that if you dragged the talk speedily through Hovind, everything made perfect sense.

Lynn said: Please, please do note how long "casts" like this are, if it's not noted in the link. I had some laundry to fold and some papers to organize so I did have time to listen.

*Sigh*. I really wish someone more informed than Shermer was debating the Hovind-spawn.

Dogs come from Wolves and yes C-14 dating has "issues". That's why scientists use multiple methods (like Potassium-Argon) and they understand that there are some common ways that C-14 fails.

The fruit-fly and C-14 dating stories told by Hovind-spawn are well known debunked nonsense.

And how can Shermer let the Hovind-spawn get away with saying evolution has been untested. Its a *continuously* tested theory. Every fossil and date has the potential of falsifying evolution (if it can be easily deduced that there is no way for it to fit in the evolutionary tree.)

vhutchison said: Eric Hovind tried the 'Gish Gallop,' but Schermer did an excellent job in countering by not letting him go on and on.

Paul Hsieh said: *Sigh*. I really wish someone more informed than Shermer was debating the Hovind-spawn. Dogs come from Wolves and yes C-14 dating has "issues". That's why scientists use multiple methods (like Potassium-Argon) and they understand that there are some common ways that C-14 fails. The fruit-fly and C-14 dating stories told by Hovind-spawn are well known debunked nonsense. And how can Shermer let the Hovind-spawn get away with saying evolution has been untested. Its a *continuously* tested theory. Every fossil and date has the potential of falsifying evolution (if it can be easily deduced that there is no way for it to fit in the evolutionary tree.)

Eric Hovind has obviously been indoctrinated by creationists. He uses the same argument for the Grand Canyon that has been laughed at. Listening to Hovind, it seems that he has his fingers plugged in his ears. The mannerism of Eric Hovind is more of a person who has to get the message out, than someone who is trying to educate people.

The only thing that disturbs me is that the believe the argument between creationism and science are equal arguments. The Bible is about human morality and not science.

snaxalotl said: "Anyone who thinks it’s worthwhile debating creationists..." dealing with creationists is a specialist skill that involves dealing with their peculiar emotional resistance to being swayed by logic. many people who are extremely competent at biology or scientific philosophy aren't particularly good in these discussions, and it's very tempting to blame the creationists when logical superiority doesn't win the day. while the creationists are, ultimately, entirely at fault for being WRONG (or "not even wrong", as the neat description of total cluelessness has it), my concern is that expressions like "pointless" and "arguing with a brick wall" tend to arise when people don't have the skill set to keep creationists on point and demonstrate superiority to an uninformed audience. the example that comes to mind with Shermer (who writes extremely cogent material) was a radio discussion with Dembski where the presenter was clearly left with the impression of "well, now you've heard the two irreconcilable sides of an argument". Shermer was technically correct, but when both sides argue to a standstill IMO it's a loss for Team Logic. 386: "Shermer should have told him he was a maroon and a huckster" I find this attitude particularly obnoxious. it's the complete opposite of how you combat the religious position that the reason that scientists hold all these incredibly threatening beliefs is because they hate God and christians

I really thought Shermer should have been able to take out the nonsense about wrong C-14 dating of pond snails, seals and the mammoth. The former is an example of dating the wrong material - the shells of the snails are made of the CaCO3 that was taken direct from water solution, and therefore contains material dating to long before its formation into shells. Indeed, the very purpose of the study that showed this was to point out the problem. Same for the seal. The effect is well-known, is called "the resevoir effect", and field scientists are well aware of the necessity of avoiding specimens that might be subject to it.

The latter is a crib from Walt Brown, and is simply a blunder. The samples came from different mammoths, and the youngest date given was in addition probably wrong because it was from a hide that had been soaked in glycerine.

Sorry for calling Eric Hovind a "poopy head".

Dammit, proof before posting, idiot. "Reservoir", not "resevoir"

Do we need less focus on the actual science in these debates (though that is necessary to a point) and more focus on the basics of sophist debate tactics and the debunking thereof?

I thought Hovind clearly did poorly, but I'm willing to admit my "preconceived bias" against fantasy thinking, and perhaps I also was distracted by, as someone else here pointed out, answering the repetitive and stale questions in my head. (C-14, check...Grand Canyon...check, Fossils, what fossils?...check)

For the record, if you haven't seen Dawkins speak at Randolph-Macon Women's College in Lynchburg, Virginia (apparently just down the street from Liberty Baptist University) you're missing a real treat. The audience questions from Liberty University Trolls are the stuff of youtube legend!! Here are a couple for you to feast on, but I'd suggest Googling to find the entire presentation.

Biology Major (Liberty Baptist University) questions Dawkins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd_hHCWlldo

How Old is the Earth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um3lzs00mcg

Dawkins, in the belly of the beast, slapping down the the idiocy with humor and poise. This is the style you study if you're going to get serious about engaging with the enemy.

Enjoy.

The Tim Channel said: Do we need less focus on the actual science in these debates (though that is necessary to a point) and more focus on the basics of sophist debate tactics and the debunking thereof?

Dumb Hovind junior may be, but he's as cunning as a dunny rat, and he knows how to sound convincing. That's all it is, sound and fury, signifying nothing, but it sells. To a scientist, it seems mad, and I know that, but nevertheless, evolution has to be sold, and sales is at least partly technique. It has to be learned and employed.

“Shermer should have told him he was a maroon and a huckster”

"I find this attitude particularly obnoxious."

Well, maybe you should just ask him how his dad is doing, or maybe ask him why dad couldn't be here today. Either way, it would serve to point out that this paragon of moral virtue is currently incarcerated for swindling every decent tax payer in the country, beligerantly and with malice a forethought. Obviously the apple does not fall far from the tree. Exposing them for the morally bankrupt hypocrites that they are should go a long way in convincing an impartial observer what the real motivation is for their reality denial.

I can't imagine saying anything to the Hovinds other than:

"IDers (at least those who say anything about their position beyond 'don't ask, don't tell), all OECs, and even some YECs (e.g. AIG), disagree with you. We have heard all your long-refuted arguments against 'Darwinism' before. This time please tell us in detail how you think their 'theories' fail."

This debate just sounds like Premier Radio's forum, where I've heard most of Hovind's claims in the course of the three discussion threads on evolution over the last six months or so. It's just impossible, it really is.

Here's a video from potholer 54 debunking hovind's claims on Carbon dating. The mammoth claim apparently originates with Walt Brown which Hovind senior and Junior have repeated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwywMP4Sxgo

If I'd been Shermer I'd have quized Hovind on geological sorting especially when he (Hovind) started talking crap about dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden. I thought Shermer kept his cool fairly well.

DS said: “Shermer should have told him he was a maroon and a huckster” "I find this attitude particularly obnoxious." Well, maybe you should just ask him how his dad is doing, or maybe ask him why dad couldn't be here today.

Exposing them for the morally bankrupt hypocrites that they are should go a long way in convincing an impartial observer what the real motivation is for their reality denial.

The appropriate response to Hovind's "I love science!" should have been a resounding "bullshit".

The Tim Channel said:For the record, if you haven't seen Dawkins speak at Randolph-Macon Women's College in Lynchburg, Virginia (apparently just down the street from Liberty Baptist University) you're missing a real treat. The audience questions from Liberty University Trolls are the stuff of youtube legend!! Here are a couple for you to feast on, but I'd suggest Googling to find the entire presentation.

fnxtr said: The appropriate response to Hovind's "I love science!" should have been a resounding "bullshit".

vhutchison said: Eric Hovind tried the 'Gish Gallop,' but Schermer did an excellent job in countering by not letting him go on and on.

David wrote:

"Better to marginalize the preachers by showing their arguments to have been asked and answered, and leading to uninteresting results. What has most impressed me with the truth of evolution is the nested hiearchies."

I absolutely agree. In fact, this is exactly what I do whenever I have to confront a creationist in public. The evidence is all that matters and fortunatley all of the evidence is on our side. Of course the response is always the same. The last time I pointrd this out to a creationist the response was that there is no nested hierarchy. These people don't have the slightest clue what the evidence is or how to interpret it. If they did they wouldn't spout such nonsense in the first place. Still, showing that the evidence is on our side can be effective in convincing open minded observers. However, letting charlatans and frauds calim the moral high ground hardly seems to be an effective strategy either.

The appropriate response to Hovind’s “I love science!” should have been a resounding: then why didn't you study any or learn any?

Eric Hovind and indeed many other creationist go on and on about having the same facts as "evolutionists" but merely a different interpretation. I can't believe how many times they are given a free pass on this. If you are reading this Michael Shermer, this could be a great column and a much needed one.

Pro-science and creationists don't have the same "facts." Eric Hovind, like his father before him, continually has made claims about a mammoth whose body parts carbon dated thousands of years differently. As several people above have noted, this is not true. One need only follow the reference that Hovind and other creationists cite and one immediately finds that their "facts" are anything but.

One of many things that makes creationist unscientific is their blatant disrespect for facts and data. People have been pointing out this error for a decade or so. It is not a case where one can argue whether or no x fossil is "transitional" but rather simple check of whether or not the source that creationists claims says y really does say y. I, like most people who read the Panda's Thumb, could cite many more example of this sort of behavior from the creationists.

I am rather disappointed that Shermer did not actually familiar with this common Hovind claim. If he is going to debate the Hovinds at any regularity, it might be best to be familiar with claims that the Hovinds regularly use as opposed claims used by other specific creationists or mere generic creationist claims. To say on the radio that he has not heard of some very common creationist "facts" only makes it appear that Shermer has never bothered to familiarize himself with what creationists have to say.

I know, I know: There are lot of creationist claims. But with the Hovinds there is a lot of resources that one can use to know in advance what Eric is likely to use.

By the way here is a 2000 article that debunks the mammoth claims. Also one can find pro-science and YEC articles on this claim by googling "Vollosovitch mammoth."

DS said: David wrote: The appropriate response to Hovind’s “I love science!” should have been a resounding: then why didn't you study any or learn any?

One need only follow the reference that Hovind and other creationists cite and one immediately finds that their “facts” are anything but.

The problem here is plausibility. One has to ask one’s self, and have the ability and knowledge and objectivity and just plain old common sense, is this possible? Is it more likely that evolution exists and actually happens or is it more believable that everything just came to be and that is that? Is the evidence compiled over the last 400+ years that supports the idea of evolution plausible or is the absence of any evidence that says a supreme being created everything 6000 years ago? What restrictions has religion implemented to police its self? It has never been accepted within Christianity to question any of its doctrines. Conversely, scientists and science in general, rely heavily on criticism to be accepted. Its testability is what gives it credence and it plausibility.
Unfortunately, this notion is both relevant and inane, because I’m comparing scientific knowledge to faith. I suppose if one believes something to be true then no amount of evidence will sway them. Faith is not subject to criticism, It doesn’t have to be nor will it ever be. This whole argument is just like a dog chasing its tail. Does he catch it? Sometimes, but so what.

I suppose if one believes something to be true then no amount of evidence will sway them.

RDK said: ... just put the zombies out of their misery. You can't argue someone out of something they weren't argued into in the first place. But hey; they shouldn't be too concerned with dying a little early, should they? Their heavenly reward awaits! Honestly, if you can't truly appreciate the beauty of this life--our only life--then just sign your organ donor card and put a bullet in your brain.

Flint said:

I suppose if one believes something to be true then no amount of evidence will sway them.

The reality might be more subtle. It's fairly well documented that scientists who take things for granted as so true they need not be questioned, have historically found their presumptions to be true because their experiments are constructed to make it true. When an experiment is constructed to determine WHY something is true that in fact is not true, the results can't help but answer the wrong question. To the satisfaction and expectation of the scientist who does the experiment. The US, for example, has over a century of scientific research conducted to explain WHY people who don't look like the scientists doing the research are so obviously inherently inferior to those who DO look like the scientists. All done according to the scientific method, of course. Turns out those who don't look like the scientists are inferior in every respect that experiments can address. And this is what creationists are talking about when they say "same facts, different interpretations." So you have a bigger brain than mine? You're inferior. Oh, it's smaller? You're still inferior (for ad hoc reasons). And so on. See, I KNOW you're inferior, it's as self-evident to me as inherent design is to Behe, so ANY differences my experiments can identify contribute to an explanation for it. So the difference is, in principle, given enough time, evidence can trump scientific conceptual errors (even those deeply socially ingrained), but can't trump religious preferences. And so we see the world of science eventually arriving at consensus as consiliant evidence accumulates. And in the world of religion, we see schisms that can't be healed, and there are tens of thousands of flavors of a given faith, because there IS no objective authority to act as arbiter. Only groups with shared preferences.

Yes, Hovind was very skilled at what he did, and Shermer paid the price. People who listen to these call-ins aren't interested in the details that Shermer tried to lay out. One, they don't understand them to begin with (that's science folks) and two it goes against their belief system. It's far easier to understand a Hovind than it is a Shermer.
Second, Hovind, like all creationists, once given the floor, will run (away) with it. They resent being interrupted, but will themselves interrupt. They can slip in their stupid comments and outrageous claims that sound logical to the illiterate masses while giving no time for response, and as noted above, people don't care to listen to a detailed, scientific response. Shermer started to press the issue about the bible and god and all that, but he let Hovind escape the noose by not pressing the issue. After all, we must be delicate when it comes to religious views, but creationists/ID'ers are free to trash science and scientists all they want.
You have to catch creationists/ID'ers off guard and ask them questions they don't want to answer, especially in public.

I was in the audience when Shermer debated Kent Hovind some years ago. Every time Hovind lied, I commented quietly, "He just lied." I was threatened with ejection, but this was at UC Irvine, and at the time I had some privileges there. I told the Christian goons that I would scream bloody murder, they would have to drag me out, and I would have the campus police there in minutes to arrest them on my assault charge.

What fuckers.

I did get a free Bible when a Hovinoid shoved one in my face. I just took it away, and said, "Thank you brother."

I think his shocked look indicated that I was supposed to have burst into flames.

This is the most eloquent diatribe of crap I’ve seen in a while. Let’s say for the sake of your argument that I was a scientist, self proclaimed of course. I want to prove that pigs can fly

Other information, however, is explicitly asserted, not tacitly assumed. Such asserted information is associated with certain sources. A child might note that science teachers make surprising claims about the origin of human beings, for instance, whereas their parents do not. Furthermore, the tentative status of this information is sometimes explicitly marked; people will assert that they “believe in evolution.” When faced with this kind of asserted information, one can occasionally evaluate its truth directly. But in some domains, including much of science, direct evaluation is difficult or impossible. Few of us are qualified to assess claims about the merits of string theory, the role of mercury in the etiology of autism, or the existence of repressed memories. So rather than evaluating the asserted claim itself, we instead evaluate the claim’s source. If the source is deemed trustworthy, people will believe the claim, often without really understanding it. Consider, for example, that many Americans who claim to believe in natural selection are unable to accurately describe how natural selection works (3). This suggests that their belief is not necessarily rooted in an appreciation of the evidence and arguments. Rather, this scientifically credulous subpopulation accepts this information because they trust the people who say it is true. Science is not special here; the same process of deference holds for certain religious, moral, and political beliefs as well. In an illustrative recent study, participants were asked their opinion about a social welfare policy that was described as being endorsed by either Democrats or Republicans. Although the participants sincerely believed that their responses were based on the objective merits of the policy, the major determinant of what they thought of the policy was, in fact, whether or not their favored political party was said to endorse it (27). Additionally, many of the specific moral intuitions held by members of a society appear to be the consequence, not of personal moral contemplation, but of deference to the views of the community (28). Adults thus rely on the trustworthiness of the source when deciding which asserted claims to believe.

David Fickett-Wilbar said: From my point of view it's a tactical question. As they say in the military, "what's the mission?" To piss off creationists? Or to peel off from them those that are on the fence?

I made my initial comment in this thread without hearing the podcast (nor have I had a chance, alas, since I'm in the midst of recovering from the flu). In order to debate creationists successfully, evolution supporters need to be skilled not only with respect to their scientific knowledge, but also in their ability to debate their opponents effectively. For example, I know that Ken Miller "studied" debates by creationists Henry Morris and Duane Gish prior to his very first debate against a creationist - which was with Henry Morris on the campus of Brown University eons ago (In the interest of full disclosure, I assisted Ken in that debate) - as well as obtaining information on radiometric dating, paleontology, etc. from his scientific colleagues at Brown and elsewhere. That is a lesson which needs to be heeded by anyone thinking seriously of debating a creationist, whether that person is an eminent science writer like Shermer, a science professor like Miller, or a graduate student.

Flint said:

This is the most eloquent diatribe of crap I’ve seen in a while. Let’s say for the sake of your argument that I was a scientist, self proclaimed of course. I want to prove that pigs can fly

I should probably have made it clearer. Not even the most ardent creationist denies SOME adaptation, or SOME natural history. The goal is to fit it to foregone requirements. If the fit is hopeless (like flying pigs), then the solution isn't so subtle. You just lie (like Hovind did). I was just trying to point out that scientists, being human, have imperfect models of the world, and socially-ingrained preconceptions, and a tendency to construct question-begging experiments, or experiments where the expected result is the default, etc. Science has weapons to battle these problems, such as peer review, replication, cross-cultural standards, etc. If this weren't true, science, like religion, could not converge on any solid consensus. The Piltdown Man hoax was as successful as it was, for as long as it was, not because of a failure of evidence, but because the evidence dovetailed so well with the theories at the time. Theories color our interpretation of evidence. Just as interesting, Piltdown Man was almost immediately challenged by the French, again not so much on the merits, as because of nationalism - the French challenged nearly every discovery by the British or Germans on those grounds. Anyway, scientists are human, knowledge accumulates gradually by trial and error, and errors of theory lead to errors of interpretation.

Desslok:

OK, we're saying the same thing. Scientists make well-meaning errors and DO correct them, largely because they CAN correct them. They have reality handy as the arbiter to decide disputes, and science appeals to it continuously. Religions have no such arbiter. Even creationism, which seems to make scientific (testable) claims, in fact does not do so. It simply attempts to paint a sheen of scientificness over a set of arbitrary doctrines.

(Incidentally, I found Gould's analysis of the Piltdown affair quite persuasive. Gould says, it was done as a practical joke, with the intention of revealing it as such shortly. Gould suspects Pierre Teilhard de Chardin of pulling the joke, because Teilhard had recently been in Africa where he had access to the jawbone. The problem was, Woodward fell for the joke unexpectedly hard and fast, and staked his whole reputation on it before Teilhard had a chance to produce the punch line.

So I don't consider this malicious. Teilhard was a college student, prone to pranks. And it WAS a good prank, except it backfired.)

Anthony said: The Bible is about human morality and not science.

Flint said: Desslok: OK, we're saying the same thing. Scientists make well-meaning errors and DO correct them, largely because they CAN correct them. They have reality handy as the arbiter to decide disputes, and science appeals to it continuously. Religions have no such arbiter. Even creationism, which seems to make scientific (testable) claims, in fact does not do so. It simply attempts to paint a sheen of scientificness over a set of arbitrary doctrines. (Incidentally, I found Gould's analysis of the Piltdown affair quite persuasive. Gould says, it was done as a practical joke, with the intention of revealing it as such shortly. Gould suspects Pierre Teilhard de Chardin of pulling the joke, because Teilhard had recently been in Africa where he had access to the jawbone. The problem was, Woodward fell for the joke unexpectedly hard and fast, and staked his whole reputation on it before Teilhard had a chance to produce the punch line. So I don't consider this malicious. Teilhard was a college student, prone to pranks. And it WAS a good prank, except it backfired.)

An interesting study in trustworthiness has to do with the Cardiff Giant hoax. Do a quick scan and see how fundamentalists were sucked into this one. If creationists bring up the Piltdown affair, remind them of the Cardiff Giant affair.

37And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.[he made striped stakes] 38And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. [he stuck the striped stakes in the ground near the water trough] 39And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.[the animals who saw the striped stakes produced striped offspring]

Cardiff Giant affair

ah, one of my favorites, and this version also relates the history behind who REALLY said, "There's a sucker born every minute!". there's some real irony there.

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

Larry said:

Anthony said: The Bible is about human morality and not science.

You have to be joking! Have you read the old testament?

Dean Wentworth said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said: From my point of view it's a tactical question. As they say in the military, "what's the mission?" To piss off creationists? Or to peel off from them those that are on the fence?

I do agree that pissing off creationists can be counterproductive. It seems like a moot point, however, where YECs are concerned. I doubt that anything more than an infinitesimal fraction of the "dinosaurs were on the ark and the Grand Canyon was carved all at once 4500 years ago" crowd are "on the fence."

There was no mention of the Bible being about science.

before science, religion was basically the only way to approach answering questions about what we observe around us.

The bible indeed was the equivalent of a science book for at least a thousand years.

religion has and still does claim to answer both how and why questions.

Is the bible about science?

It's really hard to claim it isn't, when YEC's actually do exist in large numbers.

and the grass roots have very little problem mentally skipping over the clear examples of hovind-rebuttal.

again, the reason they do this is because, for decades, scientists have been painted in these circles as "frauds", "elitists", etc. So, creationists tend to trust the authority of people like Hovind above anyone claiming to be a scientist.

It's a case of projection on the part of people like Hovind, who themselves are the actual frauds.

The evidence itself supporting evolutionary theory will not sway someone who is confused about what evidence means to begin with. The only thing that begins to convince them is to show just how misplaced their trust is.

It's quite easy to show how many, especially Casey Luskin, at the Disinformation Institute lie on a nearly daily basis.

that, more than any fossil find or published paper demonstrating natural or sexual selection, ends up being convincing to a creationist.

it's quite similar to the all too common political tactic of tearing down your opponents credibility, rather than building on your own platform.

It works, and I think the Science article I referenced earlier does an excellent job of explaining exactly why it works, especially in the US.

If it was a practical joke why didn’t he step forward and say so sooner? Clearly if he had any respect for the scientific community he would have despite the consequences.

For this reason, I think the proper tactic is to abandon the broad debate (very hard for people with skills at abstract thinking) and say “well let’s hold up and discuss this point you just brought up”.

if you could clearly show the hovind to be UTTERLY, MEMORABLY WRONG on a single point, this would refute a very common belief that every single thing issuing from a hovind mouth is gold

Flint said: To the creationists, debates are preaching devices. They are rigged as much as possible to make the scientist look pedantic, argumentative, authoritarian, uncertain, and inarticulate. Telling lies accomplishes most of this very effectively. It's a GREAT preaching tool.

snax has a point. I don't think there's any point at all in debating people like the Hovinds in the fora they choose, if we do it on the science alone. It's being thrown to the lions. Or rather, the hyaenas.

The trouble is that there is no way that such a process will produce logical and reasoned examination of the evidential issues. It's a snarking contest in which the only important consideration is the effect of the words and manner of the contestants on the audience. The package, not the contents; the sizzle, not the sausage.

The least important and most trivial details of presentation become crucial, here. This is ludicrous, and it obviously produces falsehoods, but it's so. A pause to marshal words can look like uncertainty, blank incredulity at the idiocy of the opponent's argument (or the brazenness of his lies) can look like rabbit-in-the-headlights paralysis, a reedy voice sounds juvenile or lightweight, talking too fast or too slow is fatal, a few too many "ums" or "ahs" are as just as bad. Wit is good, but the exact weight of the off-the-cuff comment has to be instantly and precisely calculated, or it will sound arrogant, flip and pretentious on the one hand, or leaden and sophomoric on the other. Actual lines of incontrovertible evidence, which is what the science is all about, are frequently all but ignored - sometimes actually ignored. The facts, on which we all know creationism founders without trace, often don't appear at all.

Crazy, I know, and it would (and should) drive a scientist to drink or rage, but here's the thing: such a "debate" isn't at heart about science. It is, as many others have commented, essentially political, and it's about sales and marketing.

What to do? It isn't really helpful to get a genuine humanities scholar - a philosopher, for example - up there as well. The result is complexity and abstraction, when what's needed is simple rebuttal. Formal debate training, thinking on the feet, is more like it, (it's no accident that Phil Johnson was a successful trial lawyer) but even that can go awry. Formal debaters tend to be infused with the polite culture of that craft, and oddly enough, not particularly good at handling hard evidence. They specialise in presenting cool abstract reasoning, and are trained to sound objective and disinterested, when what is needed is a touch of exasperation and passion. (But not too much, or you come over as fanatical.) Debaters are also used to a convention: that the material of an opponent will be factual. They're not good at dealing with outright lies, and chary about calling them. They will find that their creationist opponents will dishonestly exploit that reticence to a ruthless degree.

Some have thrown up their hands and advised declining any debate with creationists, except in writing. The real showmen of the creationist circuit, the Hovinds and the Hams, know better than to accept written debate (both of those have poor literacy skills anyway), but it doesn't matter to them, because they know that a debate in writing is read by practically nobody in their constituency.

So we are left with a choice: take them on their own ground, where we fight under cruel disadvantages, or retire from the field. I say we take up the challenge. We develop and train a specialist class of rhetoricians who can take the Hovinds and the Hams at their own game. Support them with the science, arm them with the facts, the evidence, sure, but let them do the talking on the platform. Preparation is vital - but it must include counters to the creationist talking points. When faced by a lie, show why it is a lie, but be able to do it quickly. Be prepared for the stupid attacks on radioactive decay dating, on the geological column, on the statistics, on the laws of physics. Research the opponent - these guys recycle factoids endlessly. Know his favourite shonky anecdotes and have the rebuttal ready. Sell the truth. Sell it with passion and committment, because it is the truth, but remember that it is a sales job nonetheless: the object is to sell an idea to an audience. Sales job it might be, but when it comes to taking on these loons, it's the way the game is played.

I think probably we'll win anyway, even if we don't do this. The facts are overwhelming, the evidence is incontrovertible, and all the bafflegab in the world won't help them in the long run. The question is, how long will the run be? Being the indolent and impatient person I am, I want it to be shortened as much as possible.

So we are left with a choice: take them on their own ground, where we fight under cruel disadvantages, or retire from the field.

I'm not sure you caught what Gary Hurd said earlier.

you go in prepared to show that they are lying by example. Don't even bother with the evidence for evolution. You know they wont.

It is, as many others have commented, essentially political, and it's about sales and marketing.

ah, you DID catch it.

nevermind.

Anthony said:

Larry said:

Anthony said: The Bible is about human morality and not science.

You have to be joking! Have you read the old testament?

So are you suggesting that the Bible is about science. There was no mention of the Bible being about science. Or, are you suggesting that the Bible should be taken literally. Nobody is suggesting that you or anyone else take the Bible as your moral compass. It is the individuals choice to follow what ever religion they want to or not follow one. What is being said is that the Bible is not a book of science. Is this the problem?

My problem is not the statement that the bible is not about science but that anybody could take the bible as being a moral compass. The old testament has so many examples of abhorrent morals that this statement has me shaking my head whenever I hear it.

I see danger in this.

I know that many here, including me, are well able to demolish (at least to our own satisfaction) the claim made by (some of) the faithful that the Bible is the Word of God. Certainly. We have cause to doubt that the Bible consistently upholds decent morality. We may reasonably doubt and impugn its evident ethics. We may call it inconsistent and self-contradictory.

But such a wholesale demolition is not to the purpose here. Rather, we are engaged in a much smaller task: preventing the Bible being used as a sourcebook for science, in particular the history of life on Earth. We argue from evidence and reason that the Bible's account of creation is not literal fact.

Personally, I rather like the Garden of Eden story, taken as a metaphorical narrative. It implies that having gained the ability to choose, we must take personal responsibility for the choices we make. It is reminding us that every freedom, every choice, comes at a price. There are many other stories in the Old Testament, and even the New, that I would regard as being far more objectionable, morally. (Mind you, the idea that it was the woman's fault initially is pretty disgusting, but at least God dismisses Adam's attempt to blame it all on her.)

Why should we not proceed further to the argument that the Bible is not morally wholesome - at least, not consistently so? Such an argument can certainly be made. Why not make it?

To my mind, for two reasons. One, because it is unnecessary. To defend science, we need do no more than demonstrate that the Bible's account of creation (or other fields of nature) is not literal fact. Two, because the argument would take science off its own ground and into regions of moral philosophy, politics and ethics where it has no specific authority, or even information.

Ichthyic said (quoting Science):

Additionally, many of the specific moral intuitions held by members of a society appear to be the consequence, not of personal moral contemplation, but of deference to the views of the community (28). Adults thus rely on the trustworthiness of the source when deciding which asserted claims to believe.

Of the case examples of converted former creationists I have seen here and on Pharyngula, I recall that they nearly all said that one of the primary things that started to convince them creationism was wrong were the people who correctly and often pointed out that previously trusted sources of creationism information were, in fact, lying right to their faces.

Larry said:

Anthony said: The Bible is about human morality and not science.

You have to be joking! Have you read the old testament?

Three weeks ago I faxed the following letter to Eric the Brain-dead Parrot but received no reply. Was I surprised? No.

The "Richard" referred to was mentioned by Kent in one of his so-called "Knee-mails" (geddit?) at http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=198#comments

Mr.E.Hovind

Pensacola

USA

Wednesday, 6 May 2009

Dear Eric

I’ve been following your father’s career for some time and note that you have successfully and with great vim taken up the reins of the ministry while he is away. Your webpage is much improved and the short computer-aided videos are most impressive. I hope you don’t mind if I ask you three questions and that you can find the time to respond.

Firstly, I have downloaded most of the CSE old videos and am intrigued at your father’s opening remarks that he “taught high school science for 15 years”. What exactly does he mean by this? Is it that he (a) taught science in one or more high schools or that (b) he taught science to a high school standard?

If (a) in which schools was he employed as a teacher or if (b) in what sort of establishment did he teach?

Secondly, in your appeal for legal funds, you mentioned a mystery donor who was willing to contribute $25,000 to the costs of the appeal. Did he actually give the money as all mention of him has now been removed from the webpage? And why did he place a deadline on the donation? If he was willing generously to give $25K to a charitable cause why place such a strange condition on the gift?

Thirdly, I note that on your on-line giving page you state that:

"Your contributions are helping translate the creation message to reach two-thirds of the world, give hope to hundreds imprisoned, equip countless educators and students, and set thousands free."

Will you be publishing a report detailing this work and publishing accounts of the moneys received by donations and how they have been distributed. I am sure that financial transparency in such commendable pursuits can only be of benefit to the ministry and assist even further in your money-raising endeavours.

Lastly, in the latest Knee-mail your father mentions a “Richard”. Who is Richard? Is he a fellow inmate of your father’s? It is difficult to understand how he could be prosecuted and jailed for something he had no connection with. Perhaps some of the detail has been left out. Is the indictment available to view on the Internet?

I hope your mother is keeping her spirits up during this difficult period. I expect it will take some time before she can fully forgive your father for the dreadful situation he has placed her in. I don’t think my wife would be quite as forbearing.

RBH said:

Ichthyic said (quoting Science):

Additionally, many of the specific moral intuitions held by members of a society appear to be the consequence, not of personal moral contemplation, but of deference to the views of the community (28). Adults thus rely on the trustworthiness of the source when deciding which asserted claims to believe.

Of the case examples of converted former creationists I have seen here and on Pharyngula, I recall that they nearly all said that one of the primary things that started to convince them creationism was wrong were the people who correctly and often pointed out that previously trusted sources of creationism information were, in fact, lying right to their faces.

That's the basis for the creationist claim that evolutionists=atheists. It's an effort to discredit the source. Atheists, after all, can't be trusted to tell the truth; they're all moral relativists, and so one doesn't even have to listen to them.

John Kwok said: Obviously you're joking. I know of at least one atheist, New York City-based philosopher Austin Dacey, who is not a "moral relataivist", judging from his published writings

Mike Elzinga said:

Flint said: To the creationists, debates are preaching devices. They are rigged as much as possible to make the scientist look pedantic, argumentative, authoritarian, uncertain, and inarticulate. Telling lies accomplishes most of this very effectively. It's a GREAT preaching tool.

These debates are also used to pad the creationists’ resumes in the eyes of the followers. It makes no difference whether they win or lose the debate; their resume simply claims the creationist has “successfully” debated famous scientists. The more, the better. In the debates I’ve observed, they put religion off limits, taunt a local self-assured dolt who mocks creationists into the debate, load the church with people who are guaranteed to boo the scientist, and then proceed to “skewer the scientist and burn him over the flames of hell.” There are lots of sectarian code words sprinkled throughout the creationist’s arguments. A scientist not familiar with what is being done might fail to address these; but if he does, the moderator steps in and declares that the debaters have agreed to keep religion out of the debate. It’s a very rare scientist who can debate creationists effectively, especially since the venues are usually chosen by the creationists who then set the rules. Perhaps the best approach if one is being taunted to a debate is to simply tell the creationist to publish his “scientific arguments” in peer-reviewed journals first. Then if there is anything left to debate, do it in front of a bunch of scientists. Science is never done in choreographed debates in front of rubes. If the creationist wants to argue about this point, he simply demonstrates that he doesn't know how science is done.

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Obviously you're joking. I know of at least one atheist, New York City-based philosopher Austin Dacey, who is not a "moral relataivist", judging from his published writings

He's not joking. I mean, honestly, if I had a nickel for every time some creationist putz came polkaing in here while harping on and on and on and on about how atheists=moral relativists=scientist=devil worshiper=pagan cannibal sorcerer," I would have enough to buy two complete, up to date sets of Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology.

It’s a very rare scientist who can debate creationists effectively, especially since the venues are usually chosen by the creationists who then set the rules.

Why not just regulate the venue. Allow both debating parties to allow an equal number of supporters each and call it a day. Surely this would balance the scales a bit more favorably. They would have to comply because not accepting such a format would show an unwillingness to debate fairly. Also, outpouring from the audience would, relatively speaking, cancel each other out.

Also, play their game to some degree. Show more emotion when talking. I noticed in this pod cast that “the spawn of ignorance” came off like he was preaching at his congregation, with some exaggerated exuberance. I could just imaging seeing his followers saying to themselves as I’m sure they all feel that what he says must be true because he has such passion in his voice. (Excuse me while I puke now.) Their audience seems to respond to that.

Sometimes, as painful as it is, you must compete at the same level as your competition, even if that competition is held to a lower standard.

Dave wrote:

"Rather, we are engaged in a much smaller task: preventing the Bible being used as a sourcebook for science, in particular the history of life on Earth. We argue from evidence and reason that the Bible’s account of creation is not literal fact."

Agreed. This is what we should concentrate on. A clear presentation of the relevant facts, hopefully understandable to the average citizen. Let the creationists try to deal with the evidence rather that continually letting them put forward false or unsubstantiated claims. It also helps to know before hand exactly what those claims will be and be ready with references to refute them. This is not as hard as it sounds, since most creationsts have realtively few talking points and no real understanding of the relevant evidence.

Of course the best way to do this is not to debate unless you have at least a neutral venue. If they won't debate unlesss they control the venue then just point out that they are the ones who refuse to debate. Just about any decent impartial moderator will do and the science side can advertise to get a respectable audiance as well.

We definately don't have to try to prove that the Bible is worthless or has no moral lessons to teach. That is definately not true anyway. It is enough to show that belief in the Bible does not preclude an examination of the real world and acceptance of the knowledge gained by such an approach. The Bible itself recommends this course of action.

Now, about that "made in the image of God" thing. Why can't "made" mean evolved? Why can't God "make" humans any way he wants to? Why constrain the methods used by God? See, that wasn't so hard now was it? No conflict left and reality can be safely accepted.

desslok said: Why not just regulate the venue. Allow both debating parties to allow an equal number of supporters each and call it a day. Surely this would balance the scales a bit more favorably. They would have to comply because not accepting such a format would show an unwillingness to debate fairly. Also, outpouring from the audience would, relatively speaking, cancel each other out. Also, play their game to some degree. Show more emotion when talking. I noticed in this pod cast that “the spawn of ignorance” came off like he was preaching at his congregation, with some exaggerated exuberance. I could just imaging seeing his followers saying to themselves as I’m sure they all feel that what he says must be true because he has such passion in his voice. (Excuse me while I puke now.) Their audience seems to respond to that. Sometimes, as painful as it is, you must compete at the same level as your competition, even if that competition is held to a lower standard.

If course, if someone absolutely insists on a "literal" interpretation of the Bible, or if someone absolutely insists that the Bible be used as a science text, they I suppose it would be OK to point out the logic inconsistencies and totally wrong things in the Bible. I particularly like the stripped cow thing pointed out by Ichthyic. But then, don't be too surprised if someone claims: sure that's right, I done that experiment myself and that's exactly what happened.

Instead of attacking the Bible, you could accomplish something far more effective by using persuasive logic against devout believers who think that an ominiscient, omnipotent GOD had "created" the natural realm using supernatural powers. An argument that would insist that such a GOD would not resort to chicanery, but instead, would operate by some natural set of processes - and in his/her/its - infinite wisdom - would grant us the ability to reason, so that we would understand that GOD's creative powers depended solely upon these natural processes, not via any whims of a supernatural sort. This indeed has been one of Ken Miller's most effective arguments, which he has used in every debate against a creationist - including Intelligent Design advocates - that I know of.

John Kwok said: I recall how enthusiastic Henry Morris was in his debate against Ken Miller. Indeed, Morris benefited from having an overly sympathetic audience, since most of those who heard this debate - which was held at Brown University's hockey rink arena - were Fundamentalist Protestant Christians from virtually all of southeastern New England. However, unfortunately for Morris, Ken had studied Morris's debating style, had anticipated all of his arguments, and was especially well prepared to deliver effective counter examples for each and every point made by Morris:

John wrote:

"Instead of attacking the Bible, you could accomplish something far more effective by using persuasive logic against devout believers who think that an ominiscient, omnipotent GOD had “created” the natural realm using supernatural powers."

I absolutely agree. Attacking the Bible is generally a losing strategy, since you will most likely just turn people off and they will discount everything you say after that. However, if someone insists that it is science or the Bible, then you might be forced to point out which one wins based on reality. I am not totally convinced that the people who set up such a false dicotomy don't do it for exactly this reason. You can try to tell them that they really don't have to choose between the two all you want to, but if they insist that they must make that choice then there is really nothing you can do about it except to point out that many religious people disagree. The choice to choose is in itself a choice. And if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice (to coin a phrase).

The clear goal for us is to make their audience think. If they can think then they can ask questions. If they can ask questions then they can break the chain of ignorance.

That may be easier said than it can be done:

So, hit them where it hurts. Attack their credibility. Make it more personal and expose the speaker and not their message, and it goes without saying but I’ll say it anyway, know your opponent.

Ken has been very good in his debates with creos - ranging from Morris to Behe and Dembski - for the very reasons you've noted. Indeed, as I have noted beforehand, both he and Donald Prothero have been especially effective since they "know" their opponent well (Sadly, as I've alluded earlier, a recent counter example as to how not to debate a creationist comes from grad student Abbie Smith's "debate" with an ardent Bible-thumping creo in Oklahoma. I don't think she was effective as Ken, Pennock or Elsberry have been in dealing with - and then dismissing - the inane arguments of their opponents.

Danny said: Michael Shermer didn't do so well against "Dr" Kent Hovind himself (from a video I watched). Even though I agree with Shermer's arguments, I find Hovind to be the better debater, or at least the better speaker. And we all know that debates are just public performance arts.

RBH said:

Ichthyic said (quoting Science):

Additionally, many of the specific moral intuitions held by members of a society appear to be the consequence, not of personal moral contemplation, but of deference to the views of the community (28). Adults thus rely on the trustworthiness of the source when deciding which asserted claims to believe.

Of the case examples of converted former creationists I have seen here and on Pharyngula, I recall that they nearly all said that one of the primary things that started to convince them creationism was wrong were the people who correctly and often pointed out that previously trusted sources of creationism information were, in fact, lying right to their faces.

That's the basis for the creationist claim that evolutionists=atheists. It's an effort to discredit the source. Atheists, after all, can't be trusted to tell the truth; they're all moral relativists, and so one doesn't even have to listen to them.

Again, the wedge strategy: Phillip Johnson (From Church and State Magazine, 1999.): “The objective [of the Wedge strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‘the truth’ of the Bible and then ‘the question of sin’ and finally introduced to Jesus.“

Not only has it failed, but, from its own political perspective, has persuaded only fellow ID advocates. YECs, OECs and others have made similar arguments without recourse to Johnson's reasoning (Indeed, if Johnson was successful, then the only "valid" form of creationism acceptable to all creos would be Intelligent Design cretinism, not the other "flavors" I've cited.).

MPW said:

RDK said: ... just put the zombies out of their misery. You can't argue someone out of something they weren't argued into in the first place. But hey; they shouldn't be too concerned with dying a little early, should they? Their heavenly reward awaits! Honestly, if you can't truly appreciate the beauty of this life--our only life--then just sign your organ donor card and put a bullet in your brain.

I'm with RDK - fantasies of grisly violence against creationists are the way to win this argument. That'll show 'em! Thanks for fighting the good fight, brother! [eye roll]

desslok said: Why not just regulate the venue. Allow both debating parties to allow an equal number of supporters each and call it a day. Surely this would balance the scales a bit more favorably.

Speaking of "dark thoughts", I wouldn't lose sleep if the Joseph Goebbels of the Intelligent Design Movement - one William A. Dembski - followed directly in the footsteps of his nefarious Nazi predecessor, by doing to himself exactly what Goebbels did at the very end of World War II.

Once more, some superb comments from you, eric, closing with:

"Creationists have, for decades, refused to participate in that venue."

However, you could have added as an afterthought, that instead, creationists have indulged in name calling and making groundless accusations against their opponents, most notably in accusing them of engaging in some kind of organized "persecution" against those who insist on denying the scientific veracity of evolution.

John Kwok said: Thanks for your useful reminder of Johnson's intent, DavidK, but it wasn't as successful as he had hoped:

Again, the wedge strategy: Phillip Johnson (From Church and State Magazine, 1999.): “The objective [of the Wedge strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‘the truth’ of the Bible and then ‘the question of sin’ and finally introduced to Jesus.“

Not only has it failed, but, from its own political perspective, has persuaded only fellow ID advocates. YECs, OECs and others have made similar arguments without recourse to Johnson's reasoning (Indeed, if Johnson was successful, then the only "valid" form of creationism acceptable to all creos would be Intelligent Design cretinism, not the other "flavors" I've cited.).

DS said: John wrote: "Instead of attacking the Bible, you could accomplish something far more effective by using persuasive logic against devout believers who think that an ominiscient, omnipotent GOD had “created” the natural realm using supernatural powers." I absolutely agree. Attacking the Bible is generally a losing strategy, since you will most likely just turn people off and they will discount everything you say after that. However, if someone insists that it is science or the Bible, then you might be forced to point out which one wins based on reality. I am not totally convinced that the people who set up such a false dicotomy don't do it for exactly this reason. You can try to tell them that they really don't have to choose between the two all you want to, but if they insist that they must make that choice then there is really nothing you can do about it except to point out that many religious people disagree. The choice to choose is in itself a choice. And if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice (to coin a phrase).

DavidK,

I don't deny that to those who are truly "converted", West's comments made ample sense. However, neither his remarks nor the DI's aggressive promotion of ID - as the "primary face" of creationism - have made substantial headway within the overall creationist community (As examples, I note the ongoing success of creationist organizations like ICR and AiG, which reject any ties to the DI or its principal mendacious intellectual pornography, which is, of course, ID creationism. So in that sense, Johnson's conception of ID as a "broad tent" and of the Wedge Strategy, has failed.

Sincerely yours,

John

I don't disagree with either yours or DS's observations, Frank J, except to note - as I have just done so - that the "Big Tent" that ID was supposed to have been isn't true for organizations like AiG and ICR which are vying with the DI for cultural and financial support within the broader creationist "community".

Anthony said: Eric Hovind has obviously been indoctrinated by creationists. He uses the same argument for the Grand Canyon that has been laughed at. Listening to Hovind, it seems that he has his fingers plugged in his ears. The mannerism of Eric Hovind is more of a person who has to get the message out, than someone who is trying to educate people. The only thing that disturbs me is that the believe the argument between creationism and science are equal arguments. The Bible is about human morality and not science.

desslok said: Why not just regulate the venue. Allow both debating parties to allow an equal number of supporters each and call it a day. Surely this would balance the scales a bit more favorably. They would have to comply because not accepting such a format would show an unwillingness to debate fairly. Also, outpouring from the audience would, relatively speaking, cancel each other out.

Thanks for reaffirming what eric observed earlier today here at this PT thread.

John Kwok said: I don't disagree with either yours or DS's observations, Frank J, except to note - as I have just done so - that the "Big Tent" that ID was supposed to have been isn't true for organizations like AiG and ICR which are vying with the DI for cultural and financial support within the broader creationist "community".

While I would never personally choose to engage in a debate with a creationist on his turf, I have wondered why some intrepid debaters haven’t chosen to ignore the “scientific arguments” of the creationist and instead focus on the pseudo-science tactics of the creationists during these debates. I don’t believe I have ever seen or heard of this being done.

We had a discussion about this some time ago.

I’m not sure how it would go in a debate, and I certainly don’t want to engage in any Dembskian fantasies about squeezing creationists in a vise.

However, it wouldn’t seem out of line to raise a number of questions during the debate about why the debate is taking place in the venue and under the conditions that it is.

If the creationist has such important science to present, why not air it in peer-reviewed journals? Why is it being done in a choreographed debate in front of people who are not experts in any of the material being discussed?

In fact, I would think that all those issues raised in that above link could be explicitly raised as legitimate questions during a debate. And every honest answer provided by the creationist would simply be repeats of those complaints raised by all pseudo-scientists grasping for the brass ring, fame, and the appearance of legitimacy.

Addressing “scientific arguments” seems like a fruitless activity that is doomed to failure in those creationist venues. The creationist character is there only to gain stature in the eyes of the rubes in the pews.

If he really has stature as a “scientist” as he implicitly claims, why isn’t he behaving like a scientist within the science community? Where are his research results on which other members of the scientific community are building? Why is he taking the political route instead of the open and honest peer-review route?

I don’t believe we have ever seen a creationist answer these questions honestly; and most people seem able to figure out fraudulent, evasive behavior when they see it.

Anyone is free submit their reports to peer review, but creationists are infamous for never bothering to do so, often by ignoring it all together.

— Stanton

eric said: We have a regulated venue for discussing and resolving science questions. Actually, we have thousands of such venues running concurrently: they are called peer reviewed journals. Creationists have, for decades, refused to participate in that venue.

Stanton said: Scientists already have an official venue, known as scientific peer review, where scientists submit written reports concerning their observations, experimentations, and summaries of the scientific ramifications. Anyone is free submit their reports to peer review, but creationists are infamous for never bothering to do so, often by ignoring it all together.

Frank J said:

John Kwok said: I don't disagree with either yours or DS's observations, Frank J, except to note - as I have just done so - that the "Big Tent" that ID was supposed to have been isn't true for organizations like AiG and ICR which are vying with the DI for cultural and financial support within the broader creationist "community".

I guess we can all agree that the strategy has not worked nearly as well as the DI had hoped, but probably better that if we only had AiG and ICR (& OEC organizations like RTB) to deal with. As usual, by "worked" I mean its effect on "demand" (as in public rejection of evolution and/or belief that "teach the controversy" is "fair") not "supply" (as in court cases, "academic anarchy" legislation, etc.)

Dean Wentworth said:

eric said: We have a regulated venue for discussing and resolving science questions. Actually, we have thousands of such venues running concurrently: they are called peer reviewed journals. Creationists have, for decades, refused to participate in that venue.

Stanton said: Scientists already have an official venue, known as scientific peer review, where scientists submit written reports concerning their observations, experimentations, and summaries of the scientific ramifications. Anyone is free submit their reports to peer review, but creationists are infamous for never bothering to do so, often by ignoring it all together.

This should be a stake in the heart of all pseudoscience, but the general public seems oblivious. Because of this situation, advocates of legitimate science education face a never-ending battle, and possibly a losing one at that.

Mike wrote:

"If the creationist has such important science to present, why not air it in peer-reviewed journals? Why is it being done in a choreographed debate in front of people who are not experts in any of the material being discussed?"

Perhaps a good strategy might be to refuse to debate anything that is not published in a peer reviewed journal. You might even require a list of references to be presented similar to disclosure at discovery in a trial. Now what are the odds that any creationist would agree to that? Of course you could always point out that they had declined. But then again, you might just find yourself in ar argument over what constituted a science journal or peer review. Remember Behe claimed that his book had been "peer reviewed". Still, I don't think anyone who knew anything about science would be fooled by such dodges.

John Kwok said: Sadly, not only the general public. I've had had some private e-mail correspondence recently with a fellow college alumnus - who, unlike yours truly - had some training in biochemistry - and seems incapable of distinguishing between "popular" and "scientific" definitions of the word theory or understand how and why modern evolutionary theory is valid science:

Dean Wentworth said:

eric said: We have a regulated venue for discussing and resolving science questions. Actually, we have thousands of such venues running concurrently: they are called peer reviewed journals. Creationists have, for decades, refused to participate in that venue.

This should be a stake in the heart of all pseudoscience, but the general public seems oblivious.

Mike,

Both your current and past PT points are excellent, but you're overlooking one important consideration. When "evolutionists" debate creationists, it is often structured in such a way that they have to debate the scientific merits of each. Sadly, by doing so, creationists are striving for a false dichotomy - where none exists - trying to emphasize the "controversial" aspects of evolution and thus, therefore, proclaiming that "scientific creationism" - especially of course in its recently popular, "Madison Avenue advertising" flavor, Intelligent Design - is indeed a viable scientific alternative to "GODLESS" modern science like evolution. By having such a debate, therefore, creationists believe that they're already attained the "higher ground", since, from there inane reasoning, why would there be anything "controversial" about modern science if its "believers" - in other words, the REAL scientists - weren't willing to debate them.

As an aside, I will mention that I did complain vehemently to several people at the American Museum of Natural History's Education Department and Natural History magazine's editorial staff - which was then officially still part of AMNH - more than 7 years ago, when I first heard of the Intelligent Design debate co-sponsored by both AMNH departments. I will say only that I had some heated e-mail exchanges with several AMNH employees, most notably, Natural History editor Richard Milner (since then we "patched things up" and I regard him as a friend) and I was ordered by none other than Ken Miller to "shut up" (Ken participated in the debate to argue the CON position on whether or not ID was science, with philosopher Robert Pennock. Opposing them were Behe and Dembski. The moderator - and she did do a fine job of remaining impartial - was none other than Genie Scott.).

Regards,

John

Mike said: Right now the fad in the education community is to teach high school students to evaluate information solely on their own judgement, essentially teaching them that they get to vote on what should be accepted as science. The failure to familiarize the public with how the process works in the scientific community has produced an electorate that believes that one person's opinion on an alleged scientific question is as good as any other.

John Kwok said: Mike, Both your current and past PT points are excellent, but you're overlooking one important consideration. When "evolutionists" debate creationists, it is often structured in such a way that they have to debate the scientific merits of each. ... John

Mike,

In the case of my college classmate, he did admit to me that though evolution could be seen as a valid scientific theory, we did not really have a theory that explained a likely mechanism for evolution. In reply I mentioned that we understand quite well now that natural selection is the prevailing mechanism, observing that we have ample "proof" in the scientific literature, from ongoing research on bacteria (I referred to Lenski's work) and Darwin's Finches (the classic field work - still ongoing by the Grants). I suppose he didn't know how to reply - and to emphasize my point, I suggested that he might wish too to ask Ken Miller directly - and haven't heard from since Saturday.

Regards,

John

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: Mike, Both your current and past PT points are excellent, but you're overlooking one important consideration. When "evolutionists" debate creationists, it is often structured in such a way that they have to debate the scientific merits of each. ... John

Yeah, I’m well aware of the tactic. The debates I have seen made that requirement explicit; as well as the requirement that religion was not to be discussed. But (and this was fairly early in the game; back in the 1970s), the scientists had many good opportunities to point out that the creationists were just making stuff up and not discussing any known science. At this point these questions about what the creationist was doing violating the terms of the agreement could be raised. Unfortunately the scientists in these debates didn’t have their wits about them and passed up the chance to unveil the fact that the creationist was talking pseudo-science and not science. I’m not sure it would have made much difference anyway. I simply refuse to debate them on their terms. My response is to tell them to publish their claims in a reputable journal first. If they can’t do that, there is nothing to debate.

If you had made this excellent observation of yours at any time prior to December 20, 2005 (which, I believe, was when Federal Judge John Jones issued his now historic ruling at the close of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial), then you’d find me in complete agreement. However, since then, they’ve been retreating behind the “facade” of first, “Strengths and Weaknesses”, and lately, “Academic Freedom”:

— John Kwok

Frank J said:

If you had made this excellent observation of yours at any time prior to December 20, 2005 (which, I believe, was when Federal Judge John Jones issued his now historic ruling at the close of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial), then you’d find me in complete agreement. However, since then, they’ve been retreating behind the “facade” of first, “Strengths and Weaknesses”, and lately, “Academic Freedom”:

— John Kwok

I'm not sure on which point you disagree. Do you mean that you think that, had the DI just gone away after the Dover ruling, and let AIG et al do all the talking, that public acceptance of evolution would be even less than it is?

John,

Judging from general impressions and anecdotal evidence from people who write letters-to-the-editor or call in to talk radio (who may not representative of the "creationist-on-the-street") I would guess that ID's peak of influence was about 2000. "Darwin's Black Box" was in paperback, and "Icons of Evolution" had just come out. Interestingly, even though IOE was much more friendy to classic creationism than DBB, those who raved about ID in the following years seemed to cite DBB much more than IOE. I can understand them rarely citing Dembski's books because they were too technical. At first I thought the rank-and-file were slowly conceding at least common descent, but it's probably more a case of "tuning it out" and choosing DBB because it had more and/or better "feel good sound bites" than IOE. In fact almost no one cites Behe's 2007 book, and it has been on the discount rack at out local book store for months. Then there's "Expelled."

Frank J said: John, Judging from general impressions and anecdotal evidence from people who write letters-to-the-editor or call in to talk radio (who may not representative of the "creationist-on-the-street") I would guess that ID's peak of influence was about 2000. "Darwin's Black Box" was in paperback, and "Icons of Evolution" had just come out. Interestingly, even though IOE was much more friendy to classic creationism than DBB, those who raved about ID in the following years seemed to cite DBB much more than IOE. I can understand them rarely citing Dembski's books because they were too technical. At first I thought the rank-and-file were slowly conceding at least common descent, but it's probably more a case of "tuning it out" and choosing DBB because it had more and/or better "feel good sound bites" than IOE. In fact almost no one cites Behe's 2007 book, and it has been on the discount rack at out local book store for months. Then there's "Expelled."

Frank J,

However, on second thought, you should realize too that there is still a substantial publishing "industry" for ID now, especially since noted conservatives like Ann Coulter and Ben Stein, have been busy promoting - and of course defending it - on the conservative talk radio show circuit.

As for Behe's second book, the DI distanced itself from it, simply because Behe strongly recognized the possibility of common descent.

Appreciatively yours,

John

John Kwok said: Frank J, However, on second thought, you should realize too that there is still a substantial publishing "industry" for ID now, especially since noted conservatives like Ann Coulter and Ben Stein, have been busy promoting - and of course defending it - on the conservative talk radio show circuit. As for Behe's second book, the DI distanced itself from it, simply because Behe strongly recognized the possibility of common descent. Appreciatively yours, John

DS said: Mike wrote: "If the creationist has such important science to present, why not air it in peer-reviewed journals? Why is it being done in a choreographed debate in front of people who are not experts in any of the material being discussed?" Perhaps a good strategy might be to refuse to debate anything that is not published in a peer reviewed journal. You might even require a list of references to be presented similar to disclosure at discovery in a trial. Now what are the odds that any creationist would agree to that? Of course you could always point out that they had declined. But then again, you might just find yourself in ar argument over what constituted a science journal or peer review. Remember Behe claimed that his book had been "peer reviewed". Still, I don't think anyone who knew anything about science would be fooled by such dodges.

John Kwok said: Frank J, However, on second thought, you should realize too that there is still a substantial publishing "industry" for ID now, especially since noted conservatives like Ann Coulter and Ben Stein, have been busy promoting - and of course defending it - on the conservative talk radio show circuit. As for Behe's second book, the DI distanced itself from it, simply because Behe strongly recognized the possibility of common descent. Appreciatively yours, John

David wrote:

"Why publish in a scientific journal when the cards are clearly stacked against them? Creationists know they won’t get published. I’ve heard ID’ers have gone a step further and have started to create their own ID pseudo-scientific journals that publish ID peer reviewed papers, so they don’t need to worry about scientists nixing their “papers.”

That's just fine by me. In fact it would serve three purposes. First, they could no longer play the conspiracy card since everyone could see that there was absolutely nothing stopping them from doing research and publishing it. Second, it would highlight the fact that they really don't publish in peer reviewed journals, why else would you need to publish your own? Third, it would show everybody exactly why they don't publish in peer reviewed journals. The quality of the papers would be there for all to see and criticize. I'm sure some real scientists would take to the time to expose the flaws in these "pubilcations". They might still fool the rubes, but they would not fool anyone else. Let everyone see the best they have to offer, that might just open some eyes. In fact, I really wish they would publish their "science fair" stuff, now that would be good for a laugh.

That’s just fine by me. In fact it would serve three purposes. First, they could no longer play the conspiracy card since everyone could see that there was absolutely nothing stopping them from doing research and publishing it.

— DS

Dear RDK,

Years ago I was a regular Limbaugh listener - but I was then, like I am now, a bit of political maverick - so if I can be careful enough to discern when he should be taken seriously - and when he shouldn't (which is at least more than 75% of the time with respect to social and cultural issues) - then I am cautiously optimistic that there may still be a rational segment lurking somewhere within his audience.

As for the DI's "Big Tent" strategy, it's rather hard for them make any head way in light of the relative "success" of rivals like AiG and ICR, who, incidentally, strongly reject ID, and of course, the stunning legal debacle which ID received courtesy of Federal Judge John Jones - who was at least back then a fellow Conservative Republican - in December 2005.

Coulter has become an acolyte of Dembski's, having relied upon his "scientific" expertise in her book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism", which is replete, not surprisingly, with a rather long riff as to why "believing" in "Darwinism" means "embracing" Atheism (If my memory is correct, she found him quite useful for his statistical and mathematical "expertise", which Behe relied upon for his "The Edge of Evolution" too.).

Regards,

John

To bring this slightly back on topic, I think we should bug the DI, and Coulter, and Stein to state exactly what they think of some of the more cartoonish creationists like the Hovinds. Let's not let them get away with mere "distancing."

If we do so, however, we ought to be prepared for the possibility that they’ll strike back, by rubbing into our faces, the most outlandish behavior from the likes of Dawkins and Myers, and perhaps, even insinuate that their excesses are typical “Darwinist” behavior against evolution denialists like themselves.

— John Kwok

The one thing that drove me crazy was that Shermer forgot to remind Hovind that you can't carbon date LIVING ****ing organisms!!

Frank J said:

If we do so, however, we ought to be prepared for the possibility that they’ll strike back, by rubbing into our faces, the most outlandish behavior from the likes of Dawkins and Myers, and perhaps, even insinuate that their excesses are typical “Darwinist” behavior against evolution denialists like themselves.

— John Kwok

They do that anyway ate every opportunity. So if they weasel out of a question about Hovind (or AIG, etc.) only to change the subject to more bashing of Dawkins and Myers, they will just show more people that they are no better than the Internet trolls who do just that.

John Kwok said: Yesterday I received a "friendly" reminder on the latest evils of "Darwinism" in the form of an advertisement for Benjamin Wiker's newest tome of mendacious intellectual pornography - whose central premise demonstrates how and why Darwinian thought is evil and responsible for genocide, racism, etc. etc. - courtesy of a Human Events e-mail.

Dean Wentworth said:

John Kwok said: Yesterday I received a "friendly" reminder on the latest evils of "Darwinism" in the form of an advertisement for Benjamin Wiker's newest tome of mendacious intellectual pornography - whose central premise demonstrates how and why Darwinian thought is evil and responsible for genocide, racism, etc. etc. - courtesy of a Human Events e-mail.

This is another example of mind-boggling irrationality. Let's suppose an ironclad case could be made that accepting "Darwinism" drove people to rape, murder, and eat their own children. How would that in any way constitute evidence against the theory's scientific validity?

As promised, courtesy of Regnery Publishing - which publishes both the e-mail newsletter this came from and risible mendacious intellectual pornography from many of the DI's "brilliant" cast of characters - you should take a look at this rather insipid hype-driven drivel:

Casting aside Darwinism's politically correct veneer, The Darwin Myth reveals:

The Darwin Myth: Darwin insisted that evolution must be godless to be scientific.

Charles Darwin didn't "discover" evolution—he just put his name on it. (It was explored in the 17th Century, long before his time.)

Although not Darwin's intention, Darwinism provides an open rationale for eugenics, genocide and racism

Darwin's own theory supported natural slavery—an institution he detested

Many of his best friends and allies criticized Darwin's theory, and he never definitively refuted their objections

From Darwin's obsession with making evolution his own to his belief that progress meant the advance of secularized science against religion, Wiker shows how Darwin's legacy set atheism as the default position of the scientific community and irrevocably divorced God from science.

Dean Wentworth said: Let's suppose an ironclad case could be made that accepting "Darwinism" drove people to rape, murder, and eat their own children.

... but accuse them of raping a piglet ONCE and they get all indignant.

The only thing that disturbs me is that the believe the argument between creationism and science are equal arguments. The Bible is about human morality and not science.

The Bible is about human morality and not science.

— match sites

match sites said: The only thing that disturbs me is that the believe the argument between creationism and science are equal arguments. The Bible is about human morality and not science.

Frank J,

Maybe you recall Ken saying this too when you heard in February, but two weeks ago, he observed that even Saint Augustine had advised that Genesis should not be taken literally as a factual account of the origin and creation of the world.

Best,

John

||The one thing that drove me crazy was that Shermer forgot to remind Hovind that you can’t carbon date LIVING ****ing organisms!!||

I always make the analogy science claims thermometers can give an accurate reading of the room's temperature. Okay, so a person puts the thermometer right near the window with the sun shining right on it. He then notes after a couple hours according to the thermometer the room is 90f when clearly with the air conditioning going full blast and everyone walking around in sweaters it's 68f. So therefore based on this reading, science cannot claim thermometers can ever give an accurate reading. Uh huh. A tool to measure something is only good if you use it properly.

Yeah, I was surprised Shermer had claimed he was not aware/not heard of Hovind's "problems" with inaccurate c14 datings (the snail chestnut). This is crap his father has been shoveling for years. There's so much material out there on Hovind talking points, I don't know why Shermer doesn't brush up on them. Or at least have the talk.origins "how good are those young earth claims" page open which is pretty much a point by point refutation of every Hovind chestnut.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

as well as the index of creationist claims

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

It would have zinged boy Hovind good if Shermer pointed out a refutation for this claim has been out there since 1994. He and his father should know about it. Why does he ignore the refutation and keep trotting out the dis-proven claim? Is he that ignorant of the so called debate? Hovind seems to want to wear the science mantle but real science doesn't ignore the extant criticism of claims.

I also noticed boy Hovind was using the same spiel his pa used... same little folksy catch phrases like "fluff and feathers" and "folks, you're welcome to believe that but it's not science" etc. Although elder Hovind delivered them with more practised zeal. Boy Hovind was like "insert folksy comment 187 at this point".

At least he never claimed science argues bananas evolved from a rock.

You can download the debate:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=3H6BZDI4

I love how even the hosts on thsi conservative station think Hovind is a huckster.