(Part 5 of 6, continued from previous message.
Copyright 1991 by the National Center for Science Education.
Redistributed in the Evolution Echo by permission of the author.)


Conclusions
Ray Hyman (1987), professor of psychology and executive council 
member of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims 
of the Paranormal (CSICOP), has constructed a list of suggestions 
for proper criticism of paranormal and fringe science claims which 
should also be taken to heart by critics of creationism.  His 
eight suggestions are:
          1.  Be prepared.
          2.  Clarify your objectives.
          3.  Do your homework.
          4.  Do not go beyond your level of competence.
          5.  Let the facts speak for themselves.
          6.  Be precise.
          7.  Use the principle of charity.
          8.  Avoid loaded words and sensationalism.
          My criticisms of Price and Plimer have primarily been based 
on their violations of 3, 5, 7, and 8.  What I would like to focus 
on briefly in my final remarks is number 2, the issue of clear 
objectives.
          In correspondence with me, Ian Plimer and others have 
defended his style on the grounds that creationism is a political 
rather than scientific movement.  It is my impression that they 
think it must be stopped at any cost, by almost any means 
available.  This view is not only short-sighted, it doesn't seem 
to justify the means I've been criticizing.  While the heavy-
handed style might convince some people that creationism is 
ridiculous and not worth serious consideration by scientists, 
misrepresentations are bound to come to light (as they have).  
When they do, all of the short-term gains and more are lost.
          We must not lose sight of the fact that no matter how silly 
creationism looks from an informed perspective, those who adhere 
to it are human beings.  Most creationists are sincere believers, 
even if some of the leaders of creationist organizations are not.  
There is probably no hope of convincing an insincere leader, so 
why argue rationally with one?  Why not just ridicule and abuse 
such a person?  Because sincere people are watching.  Ridicule and 
abuse simply confirm their suspicions about evil conspiratorial 
evolutionists who are out to suppress the creationist viewpoint.  
(This does not require us to forego humor or sarcasm which are not 
abusive and counterproductive.)
          It is possible to deal with creationists effectively yet 
politely--Philip Kitcher's 1985 debate and Ken Saladin's 1988 
debate, each with Gish, are prime examples.(8)  Presentations like 
these are probably more likely to persuade people than those like 
Plimer's.  Price and Plimer have engaged in the same sort of 
tactics we complain about creationists using.  The only result of 
such tactics can be the loss of credibility.
          The creation versus evolution debate is already one which 
tends to generate more heat than light.  To attempt to gain 
converts by means other than reasoned argument supported by 
evidence is to engage in a war of propaganda, in which the first 
casualty is truth.  It is my hope that this criticism will serve 
to discourage such counterproductive battles in the future.

Acknowledgements
Thanks to Robert Doolan of the Creation Science Foundation, who 
responded to my every question and provided me with copies of all 
documents which I requested, to Ian Plimer and Barry Price for 
their cooperation in the early stages of the preparation of this 
article, to Erika Mitnik for reviewing early drafts of this 
article, and to the editor of this journal and this article's 
reviewers, who provided numerous helpful comments on style and 
content.

Notes
1.  All debate quotations have been transcribed by the author from 
videotape.  Plimer's attacks on Gish included:  "They are telling 
lies for mammon.  Here is Satan [gestures towards Gish].  He wants 
God's blessing for the devil's work."  (Plimer 1989, p. 12, also 
quotes this.)

2.  It wasn't just the creationists who were unamused.  In the 
Australian Skeptics' summary of the debate (Roberts and Mendham 
1988, p. 13), it is reported that "The adjudicator summed up by 
saying that, rather than a debate, the evening was more like a 
presentation by Dr. Gish and a series of derogatory replies by Dr. 
Plimer.  He would award poor marks to both speakers, neither of 
whom had properly expounded his point of view as a science."  The 
same page of the summary states that "Dr. Plimer's style of 
speaking excited comments and polarised the passions of quite a 
few people.  Many Skeptics have said they were disappointed in his 
manner of presentation and his handling of the topic, preferring 
that he had presented purely the scientific evidence supporting 
evolution in a sombre and more scientifically respectable manner."

3.  A possible source of Plimer's remark (or perhaps they share a 
common source) is Stan Weinberg's (1986, p. 22) report in the 
_Creation/Evolution Newsletter_ that "According to [paleontologist 
Michael] Archer, Denton acknowledged that before he wrote his book 
he had never heard of the mammal-like reptiles.  He added that had 
he known of them beforehand, he would have written his book 
differently.  But there are no indications that a corrected 
edition is forthcoming."  Denton (personal communication, October 
1, 1991) says that this is a misrepresentation--his book discusses 
mammal-like reptiles on pages 180 and 181 (U.S. edition).  What he 
did concede to Archer is what I have noted in this article about 
the significance of gaps in the fossil record.

4.  This remark from Gish was garbled in transcription by 
Australian Skeptic Steve Roberts, who wrote in his summary of the 
debate that Gish had agreed with Plimer that Denton had recanted 
his views on evolution and considered it "possibly now a provable 
reality." (Roberts and Mendham 1988, p. 12)  This error made its 
way into the _Creation/Evolution Newsletter_ (July/August 1988, p. 
17) and was recently corrected by me in _NCSE Reports_ (Summer 
1991, p. 19).  The Australian Skeptics have yet to print a 
correction of this and other errors in their debate summary, 
though they have admitted them in private correspondence.
          It should be pointed out that the Summer 1991 _NCSE Reports_ 
correction contained a mistake introduced by the editor--that of 
referring to Denton as a creationist.  He is not.  As he wrote to 
me (personal communication, October 1, 1991), "I am sure that the 
cause of evolution will turn out to be perfectly natural even 
though as yet we have no satisfactory naturalistic explanation.  
However, I am inclined to the view that when the natural 
explanations are elucidated they will represent deeply embedded 
laws or tendences in the nature of things which will largely 
restrict life forms to designs similar to those actually manifest 
on earth or in other words that life's design is not contingent as 
Gould claims but directed in large measure by physics in the most 
general sense of the term."

5.  The CSF says it did not threaten legal action, though CSF 
managing director Carl Wieland did write a letter to the Catholic 
hierarchy in Sydney, New South Wales expressing concern about 
allegedly defamatory statements in the booklet (Robert Doolan, 
personal communication, April 10, 1991).

(continued)