Bubba

Agreed,

Bubba

GeoTheo

I have seen Gish destroy a biology profesor in a debate at Binghamton University. He reduced him to speechlessness. So it is possible. The strategy seems to be to pack the audience with people from all the area fundamentalist churches and keep them laughing through the use of snappy one liners. Next widen the scope of debate to abiogenesis and the big bang theory. Then use arguments based on the mathematical probabilities of an amino acid forming by chance. If the competition specializes in a particular field of biology like entomology, avoid that and attack evolution from all other angles at once in rapid fire. Most biologists are specialists in one feild and are cautious about speaking authoritatively in feilds they don't specialize in. Never bring up the Bible or present evidence for creation. Accuse the faculty of the School of censorship and put them on the spot about it.
This was 5 years ago though and I think people are catching on. This particular prof was unprepared and thought Gish was going to quote scripture the whole time or somthing.

Albion

I just read an account of a debate Gish had with Ian Plimer in Australia, where Plimer hammered him. The report said that at one point Plimer put on insulating gloves, handed Gish a live electric wire, and suggested he electrocute himself. Maybe Meagan could try that tactic (don't forget about the gloves, though).

John Galt, Jr.

Michael,

Are you saying that the students in the 'evolution' group produced evidence that showed that evolution rather than creation is the proper explanation for 'life's variety'.

I ask because, if it is acknowledged that the historical data does not in itself rule against a creation hypothesis of some sort, it is hard to see what evidence could do this.

John Galt, Jr.

The Lone Ranger

The reason I thought up the exercise was because at the beginning of the semester there were several students in the class who were claiming that "Creation Science" was just as legitimate and well-supported as "Evolution Science."

So, I decided to make them prove it.

The "Evolution" students were simply required to provide conclusive evidence that Evolutionary Theory was valid, and to provide an overview of the theory. They, of course, had no difficulty doing so.

Similarly, the "Creation" students were required to provide positive evidence for the validity of "Creation Science." (In retrospect, I should have been really nasty and required them to present a scientifically-defensible theory of Creation.)

In any event, the point was to demonstrate to them why evolutionary biology is a perfectly legitimate and very well-supported branch of science, and why Creationism fails utterly to be in any way scientific, and so does not deserved to be taken seriously as an "alternate explanation."

So, the "Evolution" students weren't required to disprove Creationism in any way, nor were the "Creation" students allowed to "disprove" evolution and use that as "evidence" for their "theory."

I think the exercise worked pretty well, actually, since even the students who had begun the semester as outspoken Creationists wound up expressing utter disgust at the lack of scientific integrity within the "Creation Science" movement.

***

Incidentally, though I'm an atheist myself, I'm always careful to remind the students that the point isn't to disprove the existence of God or any such thing. The fact of evolution is only a problem for those theists who insist upon a literal interpretation of scriptures.

I've had students tell me that after learning about how the natural world works, they've gained a greater appreciation for the "wisdom" of God. Some seem to think that because God gave organisms the ability to adapt to their environments and change over time, that this is proof of his wisdom. Well, that's their business, I suppose.

***

One could easily-enough come up with an unfalsifiable creation hypothesis. After all, there's no way to prove that the Universe wasn't created 10 seconds ago, and that all of us are carrying memories of a past that never actually occurred.

When the subject has come up in classes, I've used this to illustrate why Creationism fails as science. An untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis is of very limited value.

Cheers,

Michael

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: The Lone Ranger ]</p>

bluefugue

2.) Only evidence from peer-reviewed science journals was admissable.

I'd imagine many creationists would cry foul here, i.e. "peer-reviewed science journals are inherently biased" etc.

bluefugue

GeoTheo said:

Good analysis overall and I don't for a minute doubt Gish is capable of reducing some scientists to stuttering fools. They're just not playing the same ballgame he is.

The point about never bringing up the Bible is key. Apart from the obvious desire to avoid First Amendment issues, a brilliant tactical move by creationists is to appropriate skepticism. Most skeptics like myself have a tendency (whether fairly or not) to lampoon people's positive assertions of faith -- i.e. the classic comment of Bryan at the Scopes Trial saying "If the Bible said Jonah had swallowed the whale, I would believe that too." Creationists realized that, rather than assert their belief in Genesis, the Bible, etc., it was more effective for them to put evolution on the hot-seat. Instead of criticizing evolution because it contradicts the Bible, they began to criticize it on the grounds that it was simply a bad, unworkable idea. Make the *scientists* seem to be the guys taking things on faith. Use their skepticism against them. Put them on the defensive from minute one. It's a very, very effective tactic. And as "the best defense is a good offense," a skilled creationist debater can keep scientists so busy putting out fires on their end, that the weaknesses of Creationism are never even addressed.

SanDiegoAtheist

Tell 'em we'll let them use THEIR journals when their journals publish a paper that leads to something which cures a disease, fights old age, or otherwise leads to a biological/geological/anthropological/etc. discovery which aids in a significant fashion the human condition.

Til then, I'm going to continue to assume that the 'bias' spoken of above is a 'bias' towards GOOD science, rather than bad

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

John Galt, Jr.

All,

Will someone, a science educator preferably, restore my confidence in science education by explaining to the Lone Ranger the various flaws in his remarks about his 'defend evoution/defend creationism' assignment. I feel fairly confident that those with some training in philosophy of science see the errors (Clutch?). I would like to think that those with training in science see them as well.

I hope it is clear to at least some of you that the sort of thing that the Lone Ranger says she/he did/said in class does as much to further the 'scientific creationist' agenda as anything they themselves do. We will see.

John Galt, Jr.

RufusAtticus

What is your problem Galt?

That he required students to prevent positive evidence for their claims?

That he required them to use scientific literature?

That he didn't allow them to use misleading references?

What is it?

~~RvFvS~~