Were Evolutionists More Willing to Debate in Early 80's?

Creation-Evolution Debates: Who's Winning Them Now?
Frederick Edwords, Quarter: Spring Page(s): 30–42 Year: 1982
in publication Creation Evolution Journal
https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/creation-evolution-debates-whos-winning-them-now

Here two cases are given with several arguments for each. I am only reviewing those now, before perhaps returning to the article after that.

Against debates:

• A debate implies a win-or-lose situation, which is not scientific.
• A debate misleads people into thinking that creation and evolution are somehow equal in standing, that the scientific community is equally divided on the issue, and that the whole matter is far from being resolved scientifically.
• Creationists wish to debate scientists, particularly well-known ones, in order to legitimize themselves and creationism in the eyes of the public. Thus the mere occurrence of such an event, regardless of the outcome, tends to make creationism seem more respectable.
• When creationists claim that a given debate is about science and not religion, they imply that creationism is science and not religion. For a scientist to debate them on those terms is to concede a major part of the creationist case before the debate has even begun.
• A debate suggests that the matter can easily be decided by the public within a couple of hours.
• Debating is a creationist idea, and scientists play by the creationists' standards and on their terms when they cooperate with this activity, thereby allowing themselves to be manipulated toward creationist ends. The very fact that creationists, campus fundamentalist groups, and, recently, Jerry Falwell have collectively committed millions of dollars to promoting such debates should sound a warning that they understand that they will benefit regardless of the debate's outcome.
• Public debates are actually political moves by creationists, not sincere efforts to argue or teach science. For, if creationists were really trying to be scientific, they would be stating their case before the scientific community instead of adopting a method common to charlatans, namely that of going to the public with claims of conspiracy and discrimination by the scientific community.
• Debates are often publicity stunts for the benefit of the sponsoring fundamentalist campus groups or for the purpose of spreading creationist ideas. Debates, therefore, have been major vehicles for the growth of the creationist movement.
• Debates are spectacles—not reasoned and fair examinations of both sides of the public controversy.
• Debates accomplish little for science, since the issue is largely a matter of faith for many, no matter how much science is discussed.
• Creationists often distort evidence in their debates and present persuasive but actually illogical and fallacious arguments. However, they do so in a manner that makes creationism appear plausible to a public poorly trained in the sciences. Yet, if the scientist points this out, the creationist charges him or her with insulting the audience and being patronizing. If creationists use distortions or falsehoods in their arguments, it is difficult to call them down for it without seeming discourteous or appearing to be engaging in ad hominem attacks on them. Yet, if one does not risk this, then such distortions or falsehoods will appear to be legitimate scientific arguments.
• Doing well in a debate often requires that one "beat creationists at their own game," which often means compromising either science or one's integrity.
• Preparation for such debates is time consuming and distracts greatly from more important scientific work.

For debates:

• Many valid arguments against debating are now invalid, because so many debates have already taken place. If debating was ill advised, it never should have been done in the first place. But to stop debating now is to imply to the public that the creationists have the better case. Therefore the only solution is to debate the creationists and consistently do well in such encounters.
• When creationists fail to find an opponent, this does not prevent the event from taking place. It merely means that the creationist will speak unopposed. In addition, the creationist will make much of the fact that his offers to debate were declined. This can have a negative effect on the public's view of science and scientists and can serve to validate creationist claims.
• Debates give science a free public platform, albeit diluted with the pseudoscience of creationism. As Milne declared after his first debate, "My audience was profoundly interested in the debate and more concerned and attentive throughout the entire three hours than was any fifty-minute class in all of my twelve years of teaching experience." Such debates, then, can become a valuable public-instruction tool when properly handled.
• The public is entitled to feedback from the scientific community on this issue. Often it is only something such as a debate that can get scientists to deal directly with the general public. It would be better if this were not so, but, so long as this is the case, debates will have positive value.
• Creationism will not go away by itself. It is a serious threat. Since winning debates has actually proved effective in slowing the creationist movement in some communities (examples will be provided later), it should be regarded as an effective tool for maintaining the integrity of science in the public schools.
• To object to debates, while favoring lobbying and testifying at public hearings before politicians, is inconsistent. Such lobbying, testifying, witnessing in court cases, and the like is nothing other than engaging in debate. Often television and radio programs won't feature just one side of the issue. Therefore, in order to get broadcast media exposure for the scientific side, one must consent to a debate situation as well. So, clearly, debate is a regular part of this controversy.
• With the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution, scientists have little excuse for losing a debate. Furthermore, since the creationist "model" is so weak in so many places, a debate can be an excellent opportunity for exposing creationism for the pseudoscience it is. Much preparation is needed, of course, including a "renaissance" knowledge of science and a thorough understanding of creationism. Debates are not for the faint-hearted or ill-prepared. But those who debate well are providing a valuable service to the public and to science.
• Though many in attendance at debates have their minds already made up, many do not. If these individuals "on the fence" are not reached with point-by-point answers to the creationist's arguments, they could easily by swayed into accepting at least a portion of the creationist errors. Furthermore, many who now accept creationism do so because they think their religion requires it. If they can be shown that creationism is not good science and not necessarily good religion, they might find it possible to accept evolution without denying their faith. But if all they hear is that accepting evolution is denying God, they may come to think that is the actual choice before them.
• With so little evolution actually being taught in the public schools, and with the present diluting of textbooks, National Geographic television specials and creation-evolution debates are becoming major sources of public information on evolution. This is obviously deplorable, and something should be done about it. Meanwhile, those good at debate do their part to support evolution.

Now, let me start commenting.

I

A debate implies a win-or-lose situation, which is not scientific.

Answer:

A classroom implies an authority and disciple situation, which is not scientific. But I do not hear Evolutionists criticise classrooms.

There are other situations in life than that of scientific investigation.

Debate at least shares with it the relevance of the act of arguing, the fact of arguments being relevant.

This is so even if in a certain debate the arguments presented there are not such as to be relevant to sceintific research. Arguments are at the core of both.

II

A debate misleads people into thinking that creation and evolution are somehow equal in standing, that the scientific community is equally divided on the issue, and that the whole matter is far from being resolved scientifically.

Answer:

The argument here presented misleads people into thinking that consensus of the learned over a rather thin slice of time (and it is even thinner compared to the billions of years than to the 7200 years!) is a scientific argument.

It also misleads people into thinking a debate could be more misleading than a lack of one.

Which can only be true about a solidly Catholic and uncritically such population accepting wholeheartedly the revealed faith from God.

Not only if the Catholic faith is true is there no other such situation, but even if Evolutionism were true, there could be no such situation.

If everything from the past is to be questioned (we can't question the future before it becomes present) why should the present be immune?

If religion and culture of non-scientific types were such huge mistakes, why should today's science be immune from the origin of man making these huge mistakes?

So, even if evolution were true, this kind of argument could not be motivated by it, except by bad faith.

Especially since they love to refer to the Scopes Trial and the Huxley / Wilberforce debate.

III

Creationists wish to debate scientists, particularly well-known ones, in order to legitimize themselves and creationism in the eyes of the public. Thus the mere occurrence of such an event, regardless of the outcome, tends to make creationism seem more respectable.

Answer:

This is the kind of argument best answered by someone who cares for that kind of respectability.

If I cannot relate to treating even Evolutionists like a tramp asking for a fourteenth dram of whiskey on credit, how can I relate to them treating us Creationists like that?

If you are too much of a sucker for respectability, that may damn your eternal soul anyway!

IV

When creationists claim that a given debate is about science and not religion, they imply that creationism is science and not religion. For a scientist to debate them on those terms is to concede a major part of the creationist case before the debate has even begun.

Answer:

Actually not.

An evolutionist could - if in good faith - say that Flood geology like the experiment by Guy Berthault for rapid strtification or "Flood Paleontology" like calling Permian and and Cretaceous different biotopes during Flood, at least for land fauna (Napoleon basin has an Elasmosaurus over trilobites, but both creatures are marine or aquatic) is BAD science. It would still be true that the creationist would in such a case be doing creation science and not Genesis exegesis.

The argument seems therefore of ill faith.

If taking this line, an evolutionist who is not so sure his own scientific case could stand with a creationist, can go on and on and, to those accepting the argument, hide that fact, by saying "creation science is anyway just creationism, which is anyway just based on the Bible", even if the case which the debate could reveal was someone having evidence of geological/lithographic or of palaeontological nature which is not "based on" Genesis but simply consistent with it.

V

A debate suggests that the matter can easily be decided by the public within a couple of hours.

Answer:

And a classroom situation before teens only (with parents banned) somehow does NOT?

Oh, wait, perhaps it is more like saying the public has no right to think for itself, scientists are there to take care of schools and schools there to take care of pupils, and public should just take what scientists and schools have to offer?

Ah, that is a far worse suggestion!

VI

Debating is a creationist idea, and scientists play by the creationists' standards and on their terms when they cooperate with this activity, thereby allowing themselves to be manipulated toward creationist ends. The very fact that creationists, campus fundamentalist groups, and, recently, Jerry Falwell have collectively committed millions of dollars to promoting such debates should sound a warning that they understand that they will benefit regardless of the debate's outcome.

Answer:

If in these debates the "debating is a creationist idea", this would tend to show that creationists have more confidence about debates, right?

As for "by their standards" I have seen Kent Hovind in debates where the "scientists" (as if he weren't one, at least amateur) have been very active in setting the standards and terms.

In fact, every standard and term except deciding unilaterally what the opponent may debate about.

If creationists have invested huge money in promoting debates, well, perhaps it is not so much "knowing they will profit regardless of the outcome", perhaps it is rather being very confident about the outcome.

VII

Public debates are actually political moves by creationists, not sincere efforts to argue or teach science. For, if creationists were really trying to be scientific, they would be stating their case before the scientific community instead of adopting a method common to charlatans, namely that of going to the public with claims of conspiracy and discrimination by the scientific community.

Answer:

The expert community - being evolutionist in the recent majority the argument refers to - is using a method common to charlatans, namely pretending they know so much better than the public that they are only answering enquiries and they also use another technique of charlatans, namely dividing opponents into individual "enquirers" rather than letting them together enjoy some debates.

An astrologer may tell a weak Leo that even Leos go weak if Moon is in Virgo. But if he tells that, he had very much better not do so in presence of a very strong Leo who also has moon in Virgo.

VIII

Debates are often publicity stunts for the benefit of the sponsoring fundamentalist campus groups or for the purpose of spreading creationist ideas. Debates, therefore, have been major vehicles for the growth of the creationist movement.

Answer:

Oh, you mean you evolutionists have, in the eyes of much public, actually lost debates?

IX

Debates are spectacles—not reasoned and fair examinations of both sides of the public controversy.

Answer:

If you think the 15 minutes, then 10 minutes, then 5 minutes per speaker orally is too short for a fair examination of both sides, why not take writing on internet?

A version of debate where I am very available.

If any debate becomes long and has many side issues, it may take some time before it is available in an overviewable way, but I am striving for it.

Btw, why has Tony Reed not made any effort to show the long debate I had with him and am editing?

Would be in his interest if he had made a good show.

X

Debates accomplish little for science, since the issue is largely a matter of faith for many, no matter how much science is discussed.

Answer:

Well, that is so true of Evolutionist faith as spread in classrooms too.

Teaching evolution in classrooms is very different from teaching a scientific attitude and methodology per se and often leads to precisely "faith" rather than science.

XI

Creationists often distort evidence in their debates and present persuasive but actually illogical and fallacious arguments. However, they do so in a manner that makes creationism appear plausible to a public poorly trained in the sciences. Yet, if the scientist points this out, the creationist charges him or her with insulting the audience and being patronizing. If creationists use distortions or falsehoods in their arguments, it is difficult to call them down for it without seeming discourteous or appearing to be engaging in ad hominem attacks on them. Yet, if one does not risk this, then such distortions or falsehoods will appear to be legitimate scientific arguments.

Answer:

How about "scientists" learning some debate manners and some logic?

How about NOT pointing out "this is misleading the public which is too dumb to reason correctly" and instead saying what the fallacy is before the public and hope it is well enough educated to get the fallacy as a fallacy?

THIS argument is actually showing that the one so arguing against debates actually HAS a very low opinion of the public.

XII

Doing well in a debate often requires that one "beat creationists at their own game," which often means compromising either science or one's integrity.

Answer:

Sorry, but the "own game" of creationists, as I have seen it, has been using logic and common sense. If you beat us at that, how can that compromise your science if it is any good? If you beat us at that, how can that compromise your integrity?

XIII

Preparation for such debates is time consuming and distracts greatly from more important scientific work.

Answer:

Well, if scientific work means research and reporting to researchers, so is preparation for teaching evolution in class rooms.

Unless a lack of debates makes sure that very little preparation is needed, because a science teacher can get away with being very authoritarian to a creationist pupil.

Now, for the arguments for debates.

A sentiment which I generally speaking agree with.

I

Many valid arguments against debating are now invalid, because so many debates have already taken place. If debating was ill advised, it never should have been done in the first place. But to stop debating now is to imply to the public that the creationists have the better case. Therefore the only solution is to debate the creationists and consistently do well in such encounters.

Answer:

Hear, hear!

This was written in 1980's first half.

Have evolutionists become less debate eager since then?

"But to stop debating now is to imply to the public that the creationists have the better case."

Well, haven't we?

II

When creationists fail to find an opponent, this does not prevent the event from taking place. It merely means that the creationist will speak unopposed. In addition, the creationist will make much of the fact that his offers to debate were declined. This can have a negative effect on the public's view of science and scientists and can serve to validate creationist claims.

Answer:

Well, I too am making much of the fact that debates are declined. Rightly so, I think.

However, declining a debate can in fact deprive me of the occasion to comment on some extra ridiculous quirk in evolutionists' ways of arguing, which I am too dense to recall just from sheer memory.

After this fair warning, thank you very much.

III

Debates give science a free public platform, albeit diluted with the pseudoscience of creationism. As Milne declared after his first debate, "My audience was profoundly interested in the debate and more concerned and attentive throughout the entire three hours than was any fifty-minute class in all of my twelve years of teaching experience." Such debates, then, can become a valuable public-instruction tool when properly handled.

Answer:

I too enjoy hearing the evolutionist side. Up to when they shut up like clams.

Sometimes, after one does, like Paul Wettstein (other debater to edit my debate with), a supporter comes up in the combox and tries to tell me I was useless:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... with a Fanatic Evolutionist
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2016/09/with-fanatic-evolutionist.html

The debate he was commenting, not in but on in a metadebatish way was whether evolution can account for human morality.

IV

The public is entitled to feedback from the scientific community on this issue. Often it is only something such as a debate that can get scientists to deal directly with the general public. It would be better if this were not so, but, so long as this is the case, debates will have positive value.

Answer:

What does "it would be better if it were not so" even mean?

Is this a hidden nostalgia for the anti-debate arguments?

For a situation where scientific community of evolutionists, no longer challenged by any alternative ones, like CMI, can enjoy the status of a clergy?

V

Creationism will not go away by itself. It is a serious threat. Since winning debates has actually proved effective in slowing the creationist movement in some communities (examples will be provided later), it should be regarded as an effective tool for maintaining the integrity of science in the public schools.

Answer:

Well, perhaps you did win some debates. Not sure you would rewin if on same themes.

But what do you even mean by calling creatiuonism "a serious threat"?

If you called some other community you disagreed with "a serious threat", you might be sued. By now, after 15 years of War against Terror, you might just get away with calling Muslims a serious threat (but not in France), but try that approach if instead of "creationism" you said "Judaism" or "immigration" or ... you see what I mean?

And a serious threat to what? To your doing science about things as they are now? No. To your deluding public into thinking Evolutionism correct? Well, I hope so!

VI

To object to debates, while favoring lobbying and testifying at public hearings before politicians, is inconsistent. Such lobbying, testifying, witnessing in court cases, and the like is nothing other than engaging in debate. Often television and radio programs won't feature just one side of the issue. Therefore, in order to get broadcast media exposure for the scientific side, one must consent to a debate situation as well. So, clearly, debate is a regular part of this controversy.

Answer:

Sadly enough, media have been more willing, lately, to give only the evolutionist case.

But this might be a problem more in francophone and suecophone media than in US ones.

VII

With the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution, scientists have little excuse for losing a debate. Furthermore, since the creationist "model" is so weak in so many places, a debate can be an excellent opportunity for exposing creationism for the pseudoscience it is. Much preparation is needed, of course, including a "renaissance" knowledge of science and a thorough understanding of creationism. Debates are not for the faint-hearted or ill-prepared. But those who debate well are providing a valuable service to the public and to science.

Answer:

Hear, hear!

THAT is the kind of attitude I want from my opponents!

Three cheers for the well prepared evolutionist debater.

Happy Birthday * For he's a jolly good fellow - André Rieu
CarlosAnthonyBuenfil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKNLsrv0du8

I just think he is wrong about the case though.

The overwhelming evidence in favour of evolution is only overwhelming rhetorically, in an enumeration of the amounts of evidence that supposedly "all" speak "just" for evolution. NOT for a detailed investigation in any particular line of evidence.

I have seen Tom Trinko (in a debate about Geocentrism), after doing a very good show by presenting the case that really was hardest to me, then ask me to, as a condition for keeping the debate on my blog, add his excuse.

You can read it on the top of the blog post I called ...

With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds
posted Saturday, 28 June 2014 on my blog Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/06/with-tom-trinko-on-physics-of.html

VIII

Though many in attendance at debates have their minds already made up, many do not. If these individuals "on the fence" are not reached with point-by-point answers to the creationist's arguments, they could easily by swayed into accepting at least a portion of the creationist errors. Furthermore, many who now accept creationism do so because they think their religion requires it. If they can be shown that creationism is not good science and not necessarily good religion, they might find it possible to accept evolution without denying their faith. But if all they hear is that accepting evolution is denying God, they may come to think that is the actual choice before them.

Answer:

Actually, they would also be hearing that by accepting Evolution they would be denying either human reason or certain specific evidence. Not just that they would be denying that God the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets, including of course Moses as final author of Genesis.

Apart from this correction, that is an attitude I like from Evolutionist opponents.

It is identic to part of my rationale for debating people I won't be converting.

Sporting fun, certainly, but there is always also being useful to those "on the fence".

IX

With so little evolution actually being taught in the public schools, and with the present diluting of textbooks, National Geographic television specials and creation-evolution debates are becoming major sources of public information on evolution. This is obviously deplorable, and something should be done about it. Meanwhile, those good at debate do their part to support evolution.

Answer:

So LITTLE evolution taught in public schools?

I'd like a system in which parents could chose confession to be taught, not just between Catholic and Protestant as in Germany, but also between Evolutionist and Creationist. And OBVIOUSLY no more school compulsion.

Meanwhile, when I try to get a corner of the debate, it seems that though debates are still being held, Evolutionists have become very much more wary of them.

I have had some difficulty finding qualified opponents. I am not boycotting opponents for being unqualified, so this is not as if I were doing myself the boycott of debating I reproach Evolutionists for doing.

Perhaps indeed the case for Evolution is so bad, that Evolutionists are losing the courage for debates!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Linus, Pope and Martyr
23.IX.2016

Update next day: confer also the essay on Argument from Reason which I called Parallel Answers. Here:

somewhere else : Parallel Answer to CMI
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2016/09/parallel-answer-to-cmi.html