How creationists win their arguments.

Type B creationists don't win by logic, reason or by discussion involving brilliant insight. They win by clever tricks of debating. What follows is an example of clever debating tactics by the arch creationist Duane Gish. The source is an article from the NewScientist, a weekly magazine printed in England. Eugenie Scott debated Duane Gish and found out how these charlatans win their arguments.

My first lesson in why the decked is stacked against scientists who debate with creationists came 13 years ago on a national TV programme. The topic was a Supreme Court decision to throw out laws that require equal time to be given to teaching creation science and evolution. I'd recently left my job as a college professor to become the Director of the National Center for Science Education. And my opposition was Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego. Gish is known for chewing up evolutionists in debate, and I didn't want to be his next snack.

I went on the offensive, confronting Gish with the fact that, during the previous 15 years or so, membership of an organization of scientists, the Creation Research Society, had remained constant at about 600...clearly, scientists were not rallying around his flag.

"Dr. Gish,"I proposed, "If creation science is such great science, why aren't more scientists jumping on your bandwagon?" His response was instant, "But Dr. Scott, hundreds of scientists are giving up on gradual evolution."

He was right, of course. This was 1987, and there was quite a kerfluttle going on among scientists over whether the pace of evolution was gradual or jerky....the "punctuated equilibria" debate. But I knew damn well that the audience wasn't going to hear the word "gradual" in that sentence....only that "hundreds of scientists were giving up on evolution". Gish had scored. There were 15 seconds to go before a commercial break, certainly no time for a scholarly treatise on the pace of evolution. My heart raced, I hesitated before beginning to speak.....and the progamme's host moved on to another guest before announcing the commercial break. I had lost my opportunity.

I was angry because instead of answering my question, Gish had cleverly used my attack to put me on the defensive - a good debating ploy, but not the way we do science. And debates are about scoring points, not arguing scientific issues, which is why so many scientists lose out in encounters with creationists.

Creationists long ago learned the benefits of posing simple questions that have long and complex answers. Scientists are all too ready to take the bait. Most academics are used to explaining things in 50 minute lectures. On TV or with a live audience you often have less than a minute to make your point. What's more, there are few chances to correct misunderstandings: unlike college students, the audience won't be back next week.
-
Eugenie Scott, from the NewScientist, April 22, 2000, No.2235.

 

As you can see, Gish has no intention in discussing what is actually occurring or the real facts, but to lie by means of a debating tactics that included a deceptive remark obviously designed to deceive the audience. This is the very reason why Gish and other type B Creationists should be called liars. Furthermore, Eugenie was incorrect in refering to Gish and other such charlatans of the Institution for Creation Research as "scientists". There is no science being conducted by these or any other type B Creationists because they begin with an idea of their own creation (certainly not God's) and then proceed to accept only their arguments and twisted logic that support their bigoted view of "creation", ignoring or rejecting all evidence that supports the various hypotheses and theories of evolution.