Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jesse · 02-26-2002, 12:02 AM

<a href="http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HomePage5.html#1141807" target="_blank">http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HomePage5.html#1141807</a>

Quote:

The following is a proposed agreement for a written, scientific debate on the creation-evolution issue. It addresses a longstanding desire by the public for a comprehensive and understandable comparison of the two main explanations for how everything began�a heated issue in which little constructive dialogue has occurred. Scientific disagreements can and should be discussed without acrimony.

Notice several things about this agreement. It is balanced and comprehensive. Evolutionists who disagree with these proposed debate procedures but wish to participate can propose their own suggestions for a written, strictly scientific debate. They must sign a statement, as I will, that they will abide by the editor�s decisions resolving disagreements about debate procedures.

However, the debate must be restricted to science and avoid religion, a broader, more complex, and less-structured subject. (Because I am not a theologian, I will not debate those topics. My focus is on the scientific evidence relating to origins.) Scientific methodology is also better understood by more people. Indeed, methods for reaching religious conclusions are diverse, subjective, and cultural. Religious disagreements have been with us for thousands of years.� A purely scientific debate will be broad enough.

Many can participate on the evolutionist side. Only the lead evolutionist must hold a doctorate in either applied or basic sciences. Those who wish to participate but have no formal qualifications may recruit a lead evolutionist and offer their services to the evolutionist side. (A lack of recognized qualifications does not mean a person has nothing to contribute. However, without them, many readers might dismiss that side�s case or conclude that a poor performance resulted, not from a weak case, but from a lack of scientific qualifications.)

and

Quote:

2. The intent of this debate is:

a. To provide a vehicle for a dispassionate exchange of scientific data on both sides of a heated issue in which little constructive dialogue has occurred.

b. To make available to interested readers a clear enumeration in English of the major scientific evidence on both sides of the creation-evolution issue. Alternate interpretations and counterevidence will be contrasted. The disciplines will include: the life sciences, astronomical sciences, earth sciences, and physical sciences (physics and chemistry).

3. The debate question is: Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution? Each side will present the evidence it feels supports its view of origins and refutes the opposing explanation. Each side will summarize its position in 100 words or less and submit it with this signed agreement.� (Possible examples are given below.)

a. The Creation Position:
* Everything in the universe, including the stars, the solar system, the earth, life, and man, came into existence suddenly and recently, in essentially the complexity we see today.
* Genetic variations are limited.
* The earth has experienced a worldwide flood.

b. The Evolution Position:
* Over billions of years, the universe, the solar system, the earth, and finally life developed from disordered matter through natural processes.
* Random mutations and natural selection brought about present living kinds from single-celled life.
* All life has a common ancestor.

4. The debate will consist of only scientific evidence and the logical inferences from that evidence. Religious ideas and beliefs, while possibly correct, will not be allowed. The editor will strike such ideas from the record. The �no religion� rule would be violated by:

a. Referring to or quoting religious writings, such as the Bible or Koran.

b. Ridiculing a deity or religious belief.

c. Using a religious writing or doctrine to support a scientific claim. (However, using scientific evidence to reach a conclusion that happens to correspond to a religious writing or doctrine would not be a violation.)

Each side will define its terms, organize its evidence, and submit its arguments in whatever way will add clarity to its case.

...

9. Outside parties who contribute ideas, data, or logic to the written product must be referenced. Those who contribute substantially to the debate may become joint participants. However, the lead debater for each side, whose signature appears below, is responsible for integrating all viewpoints for his or her side into one coherent case.

10. One side may feel that the other has provided insufficient documentation for some claim. If the editor concurs after consulting with each side, the debater who omitted a citation will provide the reference or withdraw the claim.

11. One side may feel that the other has quoted an authority out of context. If the editor concurs and the quotation is not modified or qualified, the editor may add a comment.

Anyone know anyone with a doctorate who'd be interested in taking this on? I'm sure there are a lot of people here who'd like to join in as one of the "outside parties."

RufusAtticus · 02-26-2002, 01:53 AM

I'm working on my PhD in Evolutionary Biology, which probably makes me more qualified (in some respects) than many Evolutionists with doctorates. If the debate gets into "flood geology" a geologist would do way better than me.

However, this debate can be ended in 1 minuted.

There is no scientific debate on orgins with respect to Creation versus Evolution. The scientific consensus is by far evolution. Creation is a religious position. End of debate.

Maybe that's why he wants to avoid mentioning religion, because its so easy to refut his position by mentioning its basis.

-RvFvS

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

John Solum · 02-26-2002, 03:15 AM

I appears that Walt Brown's challenge is a fake. Joe Meert sent a signed contract to Brown on Nov. 6, 2000, and he hasn't heard back from him yet.

<a href="http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/walt_brown.htm" target="_blank">http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/walt_brown.htm</a>

excreationist · 02-26-2002, 06:07 AM

That's strange that they are *refusing* to debate theology...

Quote:

a. The Creation Position:
* Everything in the universe, including the stars, the solar system, the earth, life, and man, came into existence suddenly and recently [6000 years ago], in essentially the complexity we see today.
....
* The earth has experienced a worldwide flood. [4500 years ago]

I wonder what they used to initially come up with this hypothesis? Could it be... the Bible?

MortalWombat · 02-26-2002, 06:22 AM

You know, it would be interesting to see if they would debate if one of the rules is: "No comments can be made about your opponent's position, its problems or weaknesses. You must only present evidence that supports your position." I highly doubt any creationist would agree to that, because there is no evidence for their "theory," the only thing they do is attack evolution.

Jesterhole · 02-26-2002, 07:07 AM

You know, it would be interesting to see if they would debate if one of the rules is: "No comments can be made about your opponent's position, its problems or weaknesses. You must only present evidence that supports your position." I highly doubt any creationist would agree to that, because there is no evidence for their "theory," the only thing they do is attack evolution. >>>

The reminds me of a great debate on the subject, where the question was "Is creation science?". It was between Duane Gish and Frank Zindler, and was brilliant because, just like you said, Gish couldn't offer any proof that creation was science. He just kept attacking tToE.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/gish-zindler/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/gish-zindler/index.shtml</a>

-Drew

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-26-2002, 01:53 AM	#2
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	I'm working on my PhD in Evolutionary Biology, which probably makes me more qualified (in some respects) than many Evolutionists with doctorates. If the debate gets into "flood geology" a geologist would do way better than me. However, this debate can be ended in 1 minuted. There is no scientific debate on orgins with respect to Creation versus Evolution. The scientific consensus is by far evolution. Creation is a religious position. End of debate. Maybe that's why he wants to avoid mentioning religion, because its so easy to refut his position by mentioning its basis. -RvFvS [ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

02-26-2002, 03:15 AM	#3
John Solum Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 139	I appears that Walt Brown's challenge is a fake. Joe Meert sent a signed contract to Brown on Nov. 6, 2000, and he hasn't heard back from him yet. <a href="http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/walt_brown.htm" target="_blank">http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/walt_brown.htm</a>

02-26-2002, 06:22 AM	#5
MortalWombat Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: St Louis area Posts: 3,458	You know, it would be interesting to see if they would debate if one of the rules is: "No comments can be made about your opponent's position, its problems or weaknesses. You must only present evidence that supports your position." I highly doubt any creationist would agree to that, because there is no evidence for their "theory," the only thing they do is attack evolution.

02-26-2002, 07:07 AM	#6
Jesterhole Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 22	You know, it would be interesting to see if they would debate if one of the rules is: "No comments can be made about your opponent's position, its problems or weaknesses. You must only present evidence that supports your position." I highly doubt any creationist would agree to that, because there is no evidence for their "theory," the only thing they do is attack evolution. >>> The reminds me of a great debate on the subject, where the question was "Is creation science?". It was between Duane Gish and Frank Zindler, and was brilliant because, just like you said, Gish couldn't offer any proof that creation was science. He just kept attacking tToE. <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/gish-zindler/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/gish-zindler/index.shtml</a> -Drew

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.