Jul-10-93 03:34PM
Gish Answers His Critics

Here are Gish's comments from this weeks broadcast of the ICR's
"Science, Scripture & Salvation." Enjoy.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Host: Although our educational institutions are dominated by an
evolutionary view of the world, the creation movement has nonetheless
exploded in growth in recent years. Now that the evolutionists have
finally awakened to this, they're reacting vigorously. A part of
their campaign to mute creation has included an avalanche of articles
and books attacking creation. Today, creationism's best known debater
will answer their charges.

[Theme music.--rht]

Host: The well-travelled Dr. Duane Gish, vice president of the Institute for
Creation Research is our guest on this broadcast of "Science, Scripture, and
Salvation" as we complete our two-part series, "Creation Scientists Answer
Their Critics." Indeed, that's the title of Dr. Gish's latest book. It will
be out in a few weeks, and we're getting a bit of a preview as to the contents
of that book. Last week, Dr. Gish, you said probably the most frequent
criticism that we receive at ICR is that we are promoting something called
"creation science" which is really religion -- at least that's what the
evolutionists say -- that evolution is the only scientific model of origins.
Well, you dealt with that, I think, very thoroughly. You also said that
another frequent criticism is that when we quote evolutionists in our books
and in our debates that we misquote or take things out of context. Why
don't you address that, and also is that something that you bring up in your
latest book, _Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics_?

Gish: Yes, Mark. One of the chapters in my book is entitled "Scientific
Integrity." Now, as you have mentioned, Mark, evolutionists frequently
accuse creation scientists of dishonesty -- sometimes of outright lying --
distorting science, misquoting evolutionists and so forth and so on. That
charge has been made against me, and it's outrageously false. I remember
one occasion at [I can't make out the name of the place that Gish says
here--rht] University in Canada, I quoted Dr. E. J. H. Corner [sp?--rht] in
one of the books that, uh, a chapter he had on the evolution of plants. And
he said in that chapter, that, although he believed there was much evidence
for evolution from certain fields, he still believed that, to the unprejudiced,
the fossil record of plants was in favor of special creation. Well, a
professor got up in my lecture, after my lecture [no, that is not
a transcription error--rht] and accused me of quoting out of context. So,
I just lifted the article out of my briefcase and quoted the entire page.
And the more I quoted, the worse it got for the evolutionists. And, a few
years ago, Dr. Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, in
an article published in the evolutionist journal _Creation/Evolution_, also
in a book, he accused me of misquoting Corner. He claimed, and this is in a
publication, he claimed that I had left out an important word. What he said
was that Dr. Corner said that it was a fossil record of "higher plants" that
was in favor of special creation, and I had deliberately left out the word
"higher" in order to distort Dr. Corner's true meaning. I don't know how that
would have done that anyhow, but nevertheless, that is a totally false charge.
Corner does not use the word "higher" in that quotation. He said that he
still believed that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants was in
favor of special creation. He did not use the word "higher." Now, I can't
understand how a professor like Ken Miller could have made a charge against
a fellow scientist of that nature unless he had both statements right in front
of his eyes, or he had complete documentation, and if he had that right in
front of his eyes, he'd have known that I did not misquote Corner, that Corner
did not use the word "higher." So it was Professor Miller who was misquoting,
not me. [SEE NOTE #1] But that was a charge that was commonly reported in
the literature against a creationist, a totally false charge. So, often
these charges are made. Now, when these charges are made against me
personally, I challenge these people (to) go to my literature, my books,
and so forth, or any statements I have made, and specifically document
those charges. They've never been able to do that. They've never really
done that. [SEE NOTE #2] They've made similar charges against Henry
Morris, and other creation scientists.

Now, in doing that, they accuse us of dishonesty, you see. And when people do that
in a debate that I have, for example, I just point out to the audience, that
apparently, this person feels that his case is weak. Because if his case
was strong, if he had adequate scientific evidence, he would not have to
resort to these _ad hominem_ attacks against a creationist, you see. [SEE
NOTE #3] Well,
these are some of the things that I respond to, some of these charges, that
we have misquoted, quoted out of context, that's in my chapter "Scientific
Integrity." Then, in this book, _Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics_,
I answer some of their claims against us, that is, you know, in our literature,
in our lectures, in debates, we point out the tremendous scientific evidence
for creation from the fossil record, from the science of thermodynamics, and
other fields. Now, evolutionists have tried to counter these arguments, you
see. They claim, for example, well, there is some evidence for transitional
forms, and they maintain that we creation scientists do not understand the
science of thermodynamics, and so forth and so on, which is totally false.
And even one of our leading creation scientists, who served for twenty years
as dean of engineering at one of the leading schools in the Midwest,
universities in the Midwest, one of these evolutionists accused him of being
ignorant of the science of thermodynamics, and so forth, which is outrageously
false. So I deal in detail with these attacks and counterattacks on the
nature of the fossil record, the science of thermodynamics, and these other
areas of science, defending the creationist position, pointing out why we
are correct, and they are actually incorrect. [SEE NOTE #4] And I also
critique in detail
several books. There's a book by Philip Kitcher entitled _Abusing Science_.
The title is _Abusing Science_. He accuses the creationists of _Abusing
Science_. I answer in detail a book by Niles Eldredge of the American
Museum of Natural History entitled _Monkey Business_. Then there's a book
edited by Laurie Godfrey entitled _Scientists Confront Creationists_, and
that particular title is entitled [again, not a transcription error--rht]
"Science Confronts Evolutionists." And I answer in detail each chapter in
that book written by various scientists, various evolutionist scientists
against the creationists, you see, discussing in detail the evidence from
various fields of science, and our position versus their position. And so
this is what we're doing in this book. You know, Mark, many many people have
questioned us about this criticism. You know, what about this? What about
these charges by the evolutionists? What about their, you know, the various
points that they make? What is our answer to this? Well, this is a book
that is going to go a long way in doing so. Now, I have no material in
there on geology and the dating systems. The book is already 500 pages and
I felt that those areas, geology and radiometric dating, should be dealt
with by people who are specifically trained in those arease. And so perhaps
that can be dealt with in a later publication. But these deal with some of
these [once again, not a transcription error--rht] critically important
subjects, that creation scientists are answering their critics and some of
these specific charges against us.

Host: Perhaps you can share some anecdotes with us of debate experiences
you've had recently, and perhaps some of the arguments that evolutionists
still try to bring forward, including thermodynamcis and the fossil record,
and also is creationism really scientific or is it just theology?

Gish: Well, Mark, several of the authors in these books that I'll be
discussing, Dr. John Patterson of Iowa State University, Fred Edwords who
is administrator of the American Humanist Association, the largest atheist
organization in the United States, Dr. Eugenie Scott who heads up the
National Center for Science Education, that's it, really, she's it, and
it's an anti-creationist organization. John Patterson is a man who claims
that we creation scientists are ignorant about thermodynamics. He's the
expert. He has taught thermodynamics at Iowa State University as a professor
there. Actually, my first two debates with John Patterson in the state of
Iowa, I made a major issue of the science of thermodynamics, and I pointed out
how thermodynamics showed that evolution is impossible. He made practically
no reply whatsoever in those debates to my argument ["arguments?"--rht] based
on thermodynamics, and yet he alleged that he is the expert and we are ignorant
concerning the science of thermodynamics. No, that's not true at all. The
evolutionists simply do not have a valid answer to the creationist argument
based upon thermodynamics. Also, I debated Dr. Eugenie Scott, the head of
this anti-creationist organization. Now, she will not discuss the scienctific
evidence, at least she has not done so in our debates. She [unintelligible
syllable] out of this red herring that, well, evolutionist science and all
the evidence, [pause--rht] scientists support evolution and here are these
little group [sic--rht] of creationists who are merely a religious people,
which of course is simply not true. And, actually, she knows it's not true,
because there are thousands of scientists who are creationists, of course.
And, but that, generally the approach that these people will take [sic-rht].
My debate with Fred Edwords, he is a philosopher, he has no degree in science
at all. Not that he's not knowledgable in many areas, but he is defending
essentially the atheist position, although he certainly will not state that
he's an atheist, or take that position, although Dr. Patterson has done so.
So, well, in these debates, we had the opportunity to emphasize the fact
that creation is just as scientific as evolution. Evolution, certainly,
is just as religious as creation. And these are some of the very important
points that I will be covering in this book, _Creation Scientists Answer
Their Critics_.

Host: Our guest for the past two weeks has been Dr. Duane Gish, vice
president of the Institute for Creation Research, and the author of the
newly released book, _Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics_. So much
disinformation has been put out regarding creation and its scientists that
Dr. Gish felt compelled to write this book to defend creation. . .

[END TRANSCRIPTION]

Comments?

This transcript is unofficial and is posted without permission.
rich trott@gandalf.rutgers.edu

=====================================================================

[NOTE #1]
In Gish's book, he only reports that Miller made this charge, in his
article "Answers to the Standard Creationist Arguments" in the Winter
1982 _Creation/Evolution_.  Miller does indeed make this charge, and
he was indeed in error to make it.
   Gish has a major fixation on this error--he brought it up in his
1988 debate with Kenneth Saladin, out of the blue, in his first rebuttal
(pp. 55-56 of the transcript distributed by the NCSE).  Saladin's
commentary on this transcript points out an interesting fact:

      As Gish is well aware, though, and failed to tell this audience,
   the error was caught and Miller published an apology and correction
   in the same journal (Letter in _Creation/Evolution_ IX:41-43).  Miller
   explained how the error originated, and gave the entire, corrected
   quote from Corner.  It would have been more honest of Gish to mention
   Miller's public apology and retraction rather than to harp on it now,
   six years later, as if it were an ongoing offense.  [Now it's 11 years
   later, and Gish is still harping on it--and his book makes no mention
   of Miller's retraction and apology. -jjl]


[NOTE #2]
This is a flat-out lie.  In 1986, Ed Friedlander was distributing a
manuscript titled "An examination of Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.'s use of
scientific references in _Evolution? The Fossils Say No!_" which
placed Gish's quotations side-by-side with photocopies of the
full quotations from the sources quoted.  Saladin's debate transcript
gives several examples.  Gish's book mentions neither Friedlander
nor Saladin at any point.
   I am in the process of preparing a critique of Gish's new book which
points out his incredibly dishonest presentation.  The above example
regarding Miller is one of many examples of where he omits relevant
facts in a self-serving manner.

[NOTE #3]
Gish's book is itself filled with _ad hominems_.

[NOTE #4]
What is Gish's training in thermodynamics and the fossil record?  He felt
competent enough to address those.
   How many articles from _Creation/Evolution_ does Gish address in his
book?  One.  Just one--Christopher Gregory Weber's first article on the
bombardier beetle.  And Gish admits that, as Weber says, hydroquinone and
hydrogen peroxide to not explode when mixed.  He goes on to argue that
Weber still hasn't explained how the bombardier beetle could have evolved--
but doesn't bother to mention Weber's second article which offers a
possible explanation.  (Gish does cite Robert Kofahl's reply to Weber's
first article--which immediately preceded Weber's second article.  He
had to have known of its existence.)

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