Coming to the University of Florida …
Science, Man, God:
A Creation vs. Evolution Debate
Dr. Douglas Jacoby vs. Dr. Michael Shermer
October 27, 2008
Reitz Union Grand Ballroom
Doors open at 7:15 p.m.
Show begins at 8:00 p.m.
Co-Sponsored with CSA and Gator Freethought
Free and open to the public, first come first serve seating
I’ve always had misgivings about rational people sharing a debate platform with creationists. I think it gives them credibility and creates the illusion that there’s some kind of scientific controversy. It also generates press attention. Creationists are not deserving of this.
I’m inclined to agree. After spending some time in the same room as creationists, I can say that there is no way to hold a rational debate with them. The debate ends up being a shouting match or an annoying game where the creationist keeps going off into more and more convoluted tangents while the scientist attempts to pin him down.
There is yet another reason never to debate with a creationist — rapid-fire claims, often lies, all spewed out in a barrage that is impossible to rebut. This is sometimes called the “Gish Gallop,” named after Duane Gish and mentioned in that Wikipedia article about him. (But I’ve seen the technique used years earlier by Ralph Nader.)
I just blogged over at my place about a goofy letter to the editor: Creationist Wisdom — Example Nine. The problem was that the letter had errors in every sentence, factual, historical, logical, etc. It took some time — more than I intended — to refute it all. There’s no way that this can be done in a debate where each side is given equal time.
And therein lies the greatest problem in trying to diffuse this so-called controversy. A comment made by Eric Pearlman in an earlier post reiterated the need to convey the truth of evolution without antagonizing the faith convictions of the creationists. This is close to impossible to accomplish when dealing with the fanatics who are literally programmed to respond with immediate and rabid antagonism at the mere mention of the “E” word. Given that the creationists don’t have a single shred of scientific or logical evidence to back their claims, they do the rapid-fire-of-lies thing to both gloss over the logical fallacies of their arguments and provoke an overpowering emotional response with their audience that would override any individual impulse to stop and critically analyze the outrageous claims being made by the creationist.
The only method I found to effectively deal with this is the admittedly shameful (for a scientific debate) tactic of race baiting (as seen here numerous times). We’ve all seen how Darwin inevitably gets linked to some racist aspect of the Holocaust/Hitler/Stalin. When the creationist attempts to use some example of this to gain emotional support, the mere mention of the fact that the founders of their religious denomination fought so determinedly and violently against the abolition of slavery, civil rights and actively promoted same notions of racial superiority which they accuse Darwin of fostering, is enough to derail any momentum of emotional support the creationist had hoped to gain, and usually goes off on some slavery/racism apologist defensive. The sad fact that makes this tactic work ~90% of the time is that while not everyone is ready or willing to proclaim that they don’t believe in God (due to creationist fear mongering on how evolution = no God), almost no one is willing to admit to being racist. Sometimes, you gotta fight dirty against a dirty fighter…
If suspect it’s a mistake to fight dirty, on their turf. My preference is to ignore the creationists — at least in face-to-face encounters. Just teach. Speak and write, and get the word out.
But if you find yourself in a verbal debate, you could point out, as Karl does, that religion traditionally supported slavery. Also, there is no scriptural support for democracy, women’s suffrage, or constitutional government — things most people like. But be careful here, because at the apex of the creationist movement there are those who know this, and who think the “good old days” of theocracy were truly good and should be restored.
I cannot speak for Michael Shermer, but I know Douglas Jacoby personally. You would be doing yourself a disservice by not attending this debate. I think you will be pleasantly surprised and find that your fears are unfounded. Creation vs Evolution is not the issue here, since this is a false dilemma, and Douglas Jacoby is well aware of this. This man is certainly NOT one of those who checks his brain in at the door and who blindly follows a six twenty-four hour creation model. Give the man a break and hear him out.
Well, if the topic being discussed won’t be the usual creationist dog&pony show, what is left to discuss or debate? Jacoby and Shermer have debated before regarding the existence of God (available on youtube in 10 video segments for the curious), and throughout the debate, Jacoby attempts to justify that God does exist through the complexity of reality, existence of moral absolutes, etc. and that the gaps for which science doesn’t have all the answers to regarding the creation of the universe somehow demands God presence as the answer. Now I’m sure for most of you regulars here, this is beginning to sound familiar (intelligent design/irreducible complexity anyone?), and we know how absurd it is when you try to give these same philosophical notions any scientific credibility. We’d also know that trying use evolution as an advocate for atheism or some sort of anti-religious tool is equally absurd when you look at its actual principles. The only people left who still believe in the 6 day creation model are cross-burning minority-haters and people who had the unfortunate situation of being forcibly isolated from contemporary society and indoctrinated with biblical literalism. If Jacoby plays the same complexity angle against evolution as he did with cosmology, he’d be just another shill for ID/IR.
If both Shermer and Jacoby were truly intelligent and well-versed on this issue, it’d be an interesting debate worth attending. If it turns out to be another BLARRG CHRISTIANITY DURRRR ATHEISM wankfest, feel free to bring rotting produce. Guess we’ll find out what happens on the 27th.
Karl asks ‘…what is left to discuss or debate?’
Come and see. (But please leave the rotting produce at home!)
There’s plenty left to debate. Why are there still monkeys? Why are there no transitional fossils? Where is the missing link? And what about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Micro-evolution, okay, but not macro. Why are you afraid to teach the strengths and weaknesses?
I am thoroughly excited about this debate, mostly because of the quality of people involved- Shermer, the highly acclaimed and successful skeptic and Jacoby, with PhDs in Physics and Chemistry, who took all this scientific knowledge and saw that it all pointed toward the God of Christianity. I would encourage everyone to visit both of these men’s websites (www.michaelshermer.com and http://www.douglasjacoby.com) to see some of the incredbile accomplishments both of them have achieved.
I am also greatly pleased that the topic is not evolution, but rather creation. I do know that Jacoby is completely behind evolution, which is contrary to what some of the previous posters seem to think. Just because evolution exists by no means proves that god doesn’t exist. All we see is God creating man, it never says how He did it.
Please come and hear both sides out. I’m going and I’m going to try and keep an open mind, and i hope everyone attending can do the same.
Though I’ve never had opportunity to try Karl’s suggested technique, I suspect it would misfire if used before an audience of US hyperchristians. In the version of history popular in such circles, the abolition movement was entirely a christian crusade (as it was, but partially), and the religious impetus behind the pro-slavery side was trivial or non-existent.
One major motivator for this particular revisionism is that the anti-abortion movement likes to declare that the fetus is analogous to the slave (remember GW Bush’s weird off-topic allusion to the Dred Scott decision iwhen debating Kerry?). They’ve convinced themselves they’re all modern William Wilberforces, and they’ve got the videos & comic books to prove it.
Well, what did you think of the debate?
Anyone?