I guess it shows how little I care about creationists that I have to edit my introduction to this article:
Originally I said Gish was a Discovery Institute fellow. Then I changed it to CMI; Creation Ministries, but now I think I've got it right:
The well known creationist Duane Gish of YEC outfit, ICR, Institute of Creation Research, recently passed away.
(Comments at Pandas Thumb as well,
(Source: Infidels.org)
From the text:
“. In contrast to the 1984 audience, who came in yellow
buses and thumped bibles on their knees, this audience impressed me as relatively
savvy.”
Saladin's Assessment of the Debate
[Assessment of the debate from
Creation/Evolution Newsletter
8(6) : 11,14 (Nov/Dec 1988).]
THE DEBATE CIRCUIT
Saladin-Gish Debate
May 10, 1988, at Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
Reported by Kenneth S. Saladin
Georgia College, Milledgeville, GA 31060
My second debate with Duane Gish took place before an audience of about 800
last spring at Auburn University. It differed only in detail from our 1984
debate (see
C/E N 4(4): 11-12), and Gish was utterly predictable.
In my 45-minute opening, I discussed the philosophy of science and
contrasting attributes of creationism, age of the cosmos, origin of life,
fossil stratigraphy, transitional fossils, and evidentiary examples from
embryology and atavisms. I finished with a stern critique of creationist
credibility, with slides and quoted passages on Gish's fire-breathing
dinosaurs, Morris's non-living plants, a
Creation Research Society
Quarterly article on the theology of radioactivity, Gish's misquotation
of authority, and creationist "arkeology."
My fundamental format and technique were similar to 1984. I change slides
about every 40 seconds, but keep my graphics simple. Many were no more than a
color photograph of a grizzly bear or a solar flare, for example -- something
attractive to keep the audience alert and form a visual association with an
organism or concept under discussion. I used one of my students as a
projectionist and we rehearsed in advance so he could change slides at the
appropriate moments without my calling for them. In 1984 some audience members
commented that this created a notably smooth and effective presentation (one
was "almost mystified" at how appropriate pictures kept coming up
without my saying anything). My principal improvement in 1988 was probably in
speaking style. I was more experienced and comfortable before a large audience
and, I felt, gave a smoother presentation.
One new tactic I introduced to this debate was to gig Gish with tape
recordings of his statements in previous debates. When the
NCSE met in Los Angeles in 1985, Fred
Edwords debated Gish on a KABC radio talk show. A caller asked Gish about the
quest for Noah's ark, and while Gish denied that any evidence of the ark had been
found, he also denied that ICR sponsors expeditions to look for it. The next
evening Karl Fezer and I visited the ICR and were entrusted by a secretary to
roam their creationist museum after hours alone. (She asked us to lock up the
ICR when we left! See our report of this foray in
C/E N
5(3):16-17.) We listened to a sound-slide program on Noah's ark which proudly
affirmed that the
ICR does sponsor
these expeditions. In 1986, Gish debated David Schwimmer at the University of
Georgia, and in the Q/A period I confronted Gish with this contradiction. He
sarcastically accused me of fabricating it and again denied
ICR involvement.
So I entered our debate this year prepared to repay him for his sarcasm,
armed with a microcassette onto which I had dubbed the seminal portions of the
Gish-Edwords and Gish-Schwimmer debates. I played Gish's twofold denial over
the PA system, then showed slides of several
Acts & Facts accounts
of these expeditions, culminating with an unequivocal affirmation of
sponsorship in the November 1986 issue. In his rebuttal, Gish seemed a bit
flustered and claimed he couldn't hear the tape I played, but notwithstanding
the slides I had just shown, he stood up and denied sponsorship once again.
Auburn is a university with a conspicuous contingent of faculty creationists,
but perhaps because of statements like this, Gish seemed to enjoy little
credibility or support that evening. I was told several of his supporters got up
and walked out during his presentation, and with statements like this it was
little wonder why.
Another element in my presentation was to reveal, more assiduously than
before, Gish's misquotations of the scientific literature. Knowing that Gish
rests much of his cause on "plausible deniability," I came armed with
a veritable library of books and periodicals he commonly cites. Gish cites
Romer (
Vertebrate Paleontology, p. 338) to the effect that bats
appear fully developed in the middle of Eocene with no trace of ancestry. I
held up Romer's book and read from an earlier chapter (p. 212), where he says
that, while bats appear fully developed
by the middle Eocene, in the
early
Eocene their insectivore ancestors. I also attacked Gish's misrepresentation of
Gavin de Beer (
Homology: An Unsolved Problem). I had this paper
with me in the original as well, and read passages diametrically opposite from
what Gish avows that de Beer wrote. My concluding slide was the cover cartoon
from
Creation/Evolution No. XI.
Gish gave his usual fossilized opening statement, but he and his audience
partisans struck me as surprisingly subdued compared to the other debates of
his that I've attended. He discussed the Big Bang and Cosmic Chicken, the
hydrogen-to-humans scenario, thermodynamics, the Hoyle-Wickramasinghe
statistical argument, fossil transitions, human origins, and the
Oxnard-Zuckerman argument. There were only two new features of his
presentation: he dwelt at length on the supposed inexplicability of
metamorphosis in the monarch butterfly, and he gave a juvenile gloss on Michael
Denton's
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Apparently he never read
any further than the flap of the dust jacket, and he reminded me of a
fifth-grade student trying to fake a report on a book he'd never read.
In 1984, I worked frantically during the intermission to prepare my first
rebuttal. This year, I had a prepared rebuttal in advance from Gish's 1984
statement, and a card file to cover anything new. Gish was so true to form I
had no need to prepare during the Intermission, so while he prepared his notes
I went down and mingled with the audience, distributed
NCSE literature, and basked in audience
adulation.
Rebuttals were quite straightforward, and I especially enjoyed taking apart
the Hoyle-Wickramasinghe's
other biological beliefs: insects smarter
than humans and not letting on, flu epidemics from outer space, and
Wickramasinghe's trial testimony that Gish's views on evolution are
"claptrap" and could not be supported by any rational scientist.
In the question/answer period the audience was surprisingly hostile toward
Gish. Questions put to me were no more challenging than "Do you think
evolution can be harmonized with belief in God?" and "What if they
did
find Noah's ark?" The only one for which I had no ready answer is why
organisms now use only the L-isomer of amino acids. Gish was piqued when the
first questioner, Georgia State University biologist Fred Parrish, addressed
him as
Reverend Gish and questioned his integrity as a Christian. Others
attacked his statistical "proof" of the impossibility of things which
in fact do happen, his abuse of thermodynamics, and his reliance on popularized
rather than refereed scientific literature. In contrast to the 1984 audience,
who came in yellow buses and thumped bibles on their knees, this audience
impressed me as relatively savvy.
To anticipate and defuse the secular humanist attack, my closing statement
focused on anticreationist opinion of clerics ranging from John Paul II to
Baptist and Episcopal leaders in Georgia. I described and displayed the
compilation in which the Fransiscan physician Ed Friedlander has photocopied
statements from Gish's literature alongside photocopies of the sources cited by
Gish to demonstrate Gish's habit of distortion.
Gish had the last word and retorted, "Sure there's a lot of liberal
theologians on the side of evolution. Why wouldn't they be? All these liberal
theologians are for ordaining homosexual ministers, for legalized abortion...
Of course they're for evolution!" The debate format did not allow me an
opportunity to come back and ask if the had meant to include John Paul II among
these "liberal theologians."
Following the debate I was surrounded by well-wishers and chagrined creationist
students. They were especially interested in comparing Gish's writing with the
Romer and de Beer literature, and seeing Ed Friedlander's paper, which some
people subsequently requested from me by mail. The creationists at my table
seemed as disappointed with Gish's performance as Democrats reviewing the last
Bush-Dukakis debate. The student organizer seemed almost grudgingly to present
me with the check for my expenses and honorarium. He had written to me in
advance, "We will do our best to publicize to supporters of both sides.
However, it must be realized that Auburn is a small town in the Deep South [and
probably will have] a bias toward Dr. Gish's theory." As it turned out, I
had no complaints about this audience, but I think Gish and the organizers were
a bit chagrined by it.
The debate is recorded on a videotape of so-so quality, a pair of good
90-minute cassettes, and a verbatim transcript of 90+ pages. The transcript
includes both post-debate annotations and research into Gish's literature citations.
I will send a four-page, detailed outline of the debate (the table of the
contents of the transcript) free to anyone who requests it, but I regrettably
do not have the time to honor individual requests for copies of the tapes or
entire manuscript. I expect to have these available for distribution through
the
NCSE by January, and presumably
their availability and price will be announced in this newsletter.
I wish to express my appreciation to Auburn University philosophy professor
Delos McKown, who was originally invited to confront Gish and recommended me in
his stead; and to my students who helped with literature distribution and
recording the debate. If I can extend any wishes to Dr. Gish, they are for good
health and a long life, so my colleagues and I will have many more
opportunities to publicly reveal the mendacity of America's most capable
exponent of "scientific" creationism.
