James J. Lippard
May-29-93 02:35PM
Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics

Organization: University of Arizona
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Message-ID: <29MAY199315354143@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic

The latest (June 1993) issue of the ICR's _Acts & Facts_ announces
a new book from Duane Gish, _Creation Scientists Answer Their
Critics_.  The advertisement enclosed with _Acts & Facts_ says:

   Just off the press!  The long-needed book answering the major
   attacks against creation and creation scientists.  Dr. Gish
   has won [sic] more than 300 debates against evolutionary
   scientists and is familiar with their arguments and tactics.
   In this 451-page book, he thoroughly refutes the leading
   anti-creationist books published in the past fifteen years,
   and establishes a strong case for special creation.  Everyone
   interested in origins (and that should mean everyone!) needs
   a copy of this book.

But not so fast. The announcement in _Acts & Facts_ itself, p. 2,
says:

   GISH ANSWERS CRITICS IN NEW BOOK

   The long-awaited book by Dr. Duane Gish, _Creation Scientists
   Answer Their Critics_, is scheduled for release by ICR in June.
   Dr. Gish has analyzed several of the most important anti-
   creationist books and articles published in recent years, and
   has thoroughly refuted their often bitter and irrational [sic]
   attacks on creationism.  While it may not silence the critics,
   readers at least will be able to see that their arguments are
   emotional [sic] and superficial [sic], rather than scientific.

   In this volume, Dr. Gish does not deal with anti-Biblical
   arguments, *nor with arguments against the young earth and
   worldwide Flood*, but only with the basic scientific issue of
   creation versus evolution. [emphasis added -jjl]  On *that*
   topic, he not only answers the evolutionists, but also provides
   a thorough critique of evolutionism [sic] and strong evidence
   for special creation.

   The book may be ordered from the Institute for Creation Research.
   It contains 451 pages and has a retail price of $16.95 (plus tax
   and shipping, where applicable).  [ICR, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon,
   CA 92021.  California residents must pay sales tax; shipping
   charges are 20%.]

This seems to me to be a tacit admission of the indefensibility of
young-earth creationism. Any bets on whether or not Gish takes up
Edward Max's second law of thermodynamics challenge in this book?

I've ordered a copy and will report here on the content of the book
when I get it. I've also ordered a copy of Marvin Lubenow's _Bones
of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils_ which is
being touted as "The most complete and accurate critique of the so-
called 'ape-men'" and is supposedly superior to Gish's _Evolution:
The Challenge of the Fossil Record_ (the 1985 revision of his
_Evolution: The Fossils Say No!_). The Lubenow book is also sold
by the ICR, for $12.95.

By the way, the latest _Acts & Facts_ also reports on an April 29
debate at San Diego State University between Gish and Richard Lumsden
on the ICR side and Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites on the anti-
creationism side. The ICR report claims that the four debaters
agreed in advance to discuss only thermodynamics, the fossil record,
the origin of life, and the diversity of life, and that neither
Awbrey nor Thwaites abided by this condition. _Acts & Facts_ claims
that Awbrey began by saying that he had nothing to say about
thermodynamics or the fossil record, but instead "chose to make fun
of the Biblical doctrine of the Flood" and that Thwaites' "entire
lecture consisted of a series of prepared slides showing out-of-
context quotes ... and caricatures of the ICR position, designed
not so much to inform, but to ridicule."

The ICR summary goes on to say that "The rebuttals and question periods
were likewise one-sided, although a little more science was included."

Was anyone here present at this debate? I thought Awbrey and
Thwaites were generally considered pretty good debaters against
creationists, but this description sounds like they didn't do so
well. Did the ICR misrepresent the content of the debate? (I
wouldn't find this particularly surprising.)

Jim Lippard             Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy     Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

=====================================================================
Bruce d. Scott
May-30-93 05:57AM
Re: Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics

Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching
From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Message-ID: <1uaeflINNgfc@nsat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic

I would just like to comment on the nature of these "debates" between
scientists and creationists. They have more of the flavor of courtroom
debate dramas rather than scientific discourse. That is, they tend more
to be legalistic than scientific [*]. That Dr Gish "won" 300 of these
debates does not have value if they were judged the way debate
competitions are judged and not actually as science. I've seen this
sort of thing before, with a character on W Buckley's _Firing Line_
who was a Judge who had recently got interested in the creationism/
evolution debate. (I've forgotten his name but don't think it was
Gish.)

[*] The fact that most of the American public cannot tell the
  difference and is actually quite enamored of legalism is one
  of the things which adds to the danger presented by this
  particular brand of anti-science.
--
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson