Authors: Robert Zuber (, Chris Colby (, An

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

====================================================================== Authors: Robert Zuber (, Chris Colby (, Andy Peters (, Chris Stassen ( Title: Various Examples of Verifiable Creationist Dishonesty ====================================================================== By Rob Zuber: (Daniel Ortmann) writes: >"do it right" be sure you have evidence. We are talking of high caliber >scientists, who happen to be Christians and creationists. These people >(also myself) have great moral accountability to be honest and >*guileless*. Any Christian who tries to falsify evidence has to face >God. Even when no one else is looking, God is. Incredible! As you said, 'Any Christian who tries to falsify evidence has to face God'. Will you accept the following as 'falsifying evidence'? ----------- I'm quoting a second-hand source, so flame me if you will. I will, however, at least list the primary sources so you can check yourself. The point here is about creationist misquoting, nothing else. The following is from source [1] (the second-hand one). ======================= QUESTION: According to creationists, there are plenty of places where the fossils are in the wrong order for evolution. This must mean geologists have to assume evolution so as to arrange the geological time scale so as to date the fossils so as to erect an evolutionary sequence so as to prove evolution, thereby reasoning in a vicious circle. When the fossils are in the wrong order, geologists apparently assume the "older" rocks were shoved on top of the younger ones (thrust faulting), or else that the strata were overturned (recumbent folds), even though there is no physical evidence for these processes. In particular, Whitcomb and Morris [2] maintain the physical evidence proves the Lewis Overthrust and Heart Mountain Overthrust never slid an inch. How do you reply? ANSWER: Whitcomb and Morris, again, quote their sources badly out of context. There is plenty of physical evidence having nothing to do with fossils or evolution that show thrust faulting to be very real. Let us consider the Lewis Overthrust and Heart Mountain Overthrust [I've deleted the Heart Mountain bit] in some detail. The Lewis Overthrust of Glacier National Park, Montana, consists of the deformed Precambrian limestones of the Belt Formation that were shoved along a horizontal thrust fault on top of much younger (but viciously crumpled) Cretaceous shales. ...[deletion]... Ross and Rezak [3] wrote in their article about the Lewis Overthrust that the rocks along the thrust fault are badly crumpled, but Whitcomb and Morris (p. 187) lift the following words from this article: "Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the impression that the Belt strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many million years ago." But if we read the rest of Ross's and Rezak's paragraph, we find that Whitcomb and Morris quoted it out of context: ".... so many million years ago. Actually, they are folded, and in certain places, they are intensely so. From the points on and near the trails in the park, it is possible to observe places where the Belt series, as revealed in outcrops on ridges, cliffs, and canyon walls, are folded and crumpled almost as intricately as the soft younger strata in the mountains south of the park and in the Great Plains adjoining the park to the east." Ross and Rezak repeatedly show how "crushed and crumpled" the rocks in the thrust fault are: "The intricate crumpling and crushing in the immediate vicinity of the main overthrust, visible in localities like that near Marias Pass, shown in figure 139, must have taken place when the heavy overthrust slab was forced over the soft rocks beneath......" [Two more quotations deleted] ============================ Now it certainly *appears* that Whitcomb and Morris have *completely* misrepresented the Ross and Rezak paper. It seems they quoted to the effect that there was *no* evidence of overthrusting, even though that paper appears to forcefully say the *exact* opposite! Now it's fine if creationists want to disagree with certain conclusions if they can back it up with evidence, but why in hell quote from a paper that completely contradicts your view? [1] Weber, Christopher Gregory "Common Creationist Attacks on Geology". _Creation/Evolution_, Issue II, Fall 1980, pp. 21-22. [2] Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris. _Genesis Flood_. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.: Philadelphia, PA, 1961. [3] Ross, C. P., and Richard Rezak. "The Rocks and Fossils of Glacier National Monument". _U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper_ 294-K (1959). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- By Rob Zuber: (Daniel Ortmann) writes: >"do it right" be sure you have evidence. We are talking of high caliber >scientists, who happen to be Christians and creationists. These people >(also myself) have great moral accountability to be honest and >*guileless*. Any Christian who tries to falsify evidence has to face >God. Even when no one else is looking, God is. Perhpaps Daniel Ortmann can comment on the folowing. It's a bit dated (1986), so maybe Mr. Ortmann can call Gish himself. The following is from the _Creation/Evolution_ journal, Issue XVII (Vol. 6, No. 1) pp. 1-5 ================ "Scientific Creationism and Error" by Robert Schadewald (1986) [deletions] Ironically, creationists make much of scientific errors. The "Nebraska Man" fiasco, where the tooth of an extinct peccary was misidentified as belonging to a primitive human, is ubiquitous in creationist literature and debate presentations. So is the "Piltdown Man" hoax. Indeed, creationist propagandists often present these two scientific errors as characteristic of paleoanthropology. It is significant that these errors were uncovered and corrected from within the scientific community. In contrast, creationists rarely expose their own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose them. GISH'S PROTEINS Duane Gish, a protein biochemist with a Ph.D. from Berkeley, is vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and creationism's most well-known spokesperson. A veteran of perhaps 150 public debates and thousands of lectures and sermons on creationism, Gish is revered among creationists as a great scientist and a tireless fighter for the truth. Among noncreationists, however, Gish has a reputation for making erroneous statements and then pugnaciously refusing to acknowledge them. One example is an unfinished epic which might be called the tale of two proteins. In July 1983, the Public Broadcasting System televised an hour-long program on creationism. One of the scientists interviewed, biochemist Russell Doolittle, discussed the similarities between human proteins and chimpanzee proteins. In many cases, corresponding human and chimpanzee proteins are identical, and, in others, they differ by only a few amino acids. This strongly suggests a common ancestry for humans and apes. Gish was asked to comment. He replied: "If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at certain other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullforg than he is to a chimapanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee." I had never heard of such proteins, so I asked a few biochemists. They hadn't either. I wrote to Gish for supporting documentation. He ignored my first letter. In reply to my second, he referred me to Berkeley geochronologist Garniss Curtis. I wrote to Curtis, who replied immediately. Some years ago, Curtis attended a conference in Austria where he heard that someone had found bullfrog blood proteins very similar to human blood proteins. Curtis offered an explanatory hypothesis: the "frog" which yielded the proteins was, he suggested, an enchanted prince. He then predicted that the research would never be confirmed. He was apparently correct, for nothing has been heard of the proteins since. But Duane Gish once heard Curtis tell his little story. This bullfrog "documentation" (as Gish now calls it) struck me as a joke, even by creationist standards, and Gish simply ignored his alleged chicken proteins. In contrast, Doolittle backed his televised claims with published protein sequence data. I wrote to Gish again suggesting that he should be able to do the same. He didn't reply. Indeed, he has never since replied to any of my letters. John W. Patterson and I attended the 1983 National Creation Conference in Roseville, Minnesota. We had several conversations there with Kevin Wirth, research director of Students for Origins Research (SOR). At some point, we told him the protein story and suggested that Gish might have lied on national television. Wirth was confident that Gish could document his claims. He told us that, if we put our charges in the form of a letter, he would do his best to get it published in _Origins Research_, the SOR tabloid. Gish also attended the conference, and I asked him about the proteins in the presence of several creationists. Gish tried mightily to evade and to obfuscate, but I was firm. Doolittle provided sequence data for human and chimpanzee proteins; Gish could do the same - *if* his alleged chicken and bullfrog proteins really exist. Gish insisted that they exist and promised to send me the sequences. Skeptically, I asked him pointblank: "Will that be before hell freezes over?" He assured me that it would. After two-and- one-half years, I still have neither sequence data nor a report of frost in Hades. Shortly after the conference, Patterson and I submitted a joint letter to _Origins Research_, briefly recounting the protein story and concluding, "We think Gish lied on national television." We sent Gish a copy of the letter in the same mail. During the next few months, Wirth (and probably others at SOR) practically begged Gish to submit a reply for publication. According to Wirth, someone at ICR, perhaps Gish himself, responded by pressuring SOR not to publish our letter. Unlike Gish, however, Kevin Wirth was as good as his word. The letter appeared in the spring 1984 issue of _Origins Research_ -- with no reply from Gish. The 1984 National Bible-Science Conference was held in Cleveland, and again Patterson and I attended. Again, I asked Gish for sequence data for his chicken and bullfrog proteins. This time, Gish told me that any further documentation for his proteins is up to Garniss Curtis and me. I next saw Gish on February, 18, 1985, when he debated philosopher of science Philip Kitcher at the University of Minnesota. Several days earlier, I had heralded Gish's coming (and his mythical proteins) in a guest editorial in the student newspaper, _The Minnesota Daily_. Kitcher alluded to the proteins early in the debate, and, in his final remarks, he demanded that Gish either produce references or admit that they do not exist. Gish, of course, did neither. His closing remarks were punctuated with sporadic cries of "Bullfrog!" from the audience. That evening, Duane Gish addressed about two hundred people assembled in a hall at the student union. During the question period, Stan Weinberg, a founder of the Committees of Correspondence on Evolution, stood up. Scientists sometimes make mistakes, said Weinberg, and, when they do, they own up to them. Had Gish ever made a mistake in his writings and presentations? If so, could his chicken and bullfrog proteins have been a mistake? Gish made a remarkable reply. He has, indeed, made mistakes..... [example deleted] Regarding the bullfrog proteins, Gish said that he relied on Garniss Curtis for them. Perhaps Curtis was wrong. As for the chicken proteins, Gish made a convoluted and (to a nonbiochemist) confusing argument about chicken lysozyme. It was essentially the same answer he had given me immediately after his debate with Kitcher, when I went onstage and asked him once again for references. It was also the same answer he gave two nights later...... [bombardier beetle stuff deleted] About the chicken lysozyme: three times in three days Gish was challenged to produce references for chicken proteins closer to human proteins than the corresponding chimpanzee proteins. Three times he responded with an argument which essentially reduces to this: if human lysozyme and lactalbumin evolved from the same precursor, as scientists claim, then human lysozyme should be closer to human lactalbumin than to chicken lysozyme, but it is not. Well, although it is true that human lysozyme is *not* closer to human lactalbumin than to chicken lysozyme, this comes as no shock and does not make a case for creationism. Furthermore, it doesn't at all address the issue that we raised. We were talking about Gish's earlier comparison of human, chimp, and chicken proteins, and Gish changed the subject and started comparing human lysozyme to human lactalbulmin! Few of his creationist listeners know what lysozyme is, and perhaps none of them knew that human and chimpanzee lysozyme are identical and that chicken lysozyme differs from both by fifty-one out of the 130 amino acids [1]. To one unfamiliar with biochemistry and, especially, Gish's apologetic method's, it *sounded* like he responded to the question. Whether by design or by some random process, Gish's chicken lysozyme apologetic was admirably suited to deceive listeners. One who was taken in by it was Crockett Grabbe, a physicist with the University of Iowa. As a result, Grabbe wrongly accused Gish of claiming that chicken lysozyme is closer to human lysozyme than is chimpanzee lysozyme. Gish then counterattacked, playing "blame the victim" and pretending it was Grabbe's own fault that he was deceived [2]. But if the chicken lysozyme apologetic fooled a professional scientist, it is unlikely that many of the creationist listeners saw through it. Gish's refusal to acknowledge the nonexistence of his chicken protein is characteristic of ICR. Gish's boss, Henry Morris, gave Gish's handling of the matter his tacit approval by what he said (and didn't say) about it in his _History of Modern Creationism_. Morris refferred to the protein incident and took a swipe at Russell Doolittle (whom he identified as "Richard Doolittle"), but he offered no criticism of Gish's conduct. Instead, he accused PBS of misrepresenting Gish [3]! Meanwhile, Gish had been obfuscating behind the scenes. The only creationist publication to directly address the protein affair has been _Origins Research_, which first covered the matter in its spring 1984 issue. Then, in the fall 1985 issue, editor Dennis Wagner revisited the controversy. However, in his article, he (1) wrongly identified Glyn Isaac as the source of Gish's bullfrog and (2) wrongly stated that Gish had sent me a tape of the lecture in which Isaac supposedly made the satement. Wagner's source, it turns out, is a February 27, 1984, letter Gish wrote to Kevin Wirth, in which Gish apparently confused the late Glyn Isaac (an archaeologist and authority on early stone tools) with Garniss Curtis. He also claimed to have a tape and a transcript of the 'Isaac' (presumably Curtis) lecture, and he claimed that he had reviewed them. In the same paragraph, Gish claimed that he had sent me his 'documentation,' and Wagner quite naturally assumed that that meant at least the tape. But Gish sent me neither, nor has he sent copies of said tape or transcript to others who have requested them. As with his chicken proteins, we have only Gish's word for their existence. For the record, it is no longer important whether Gish's original statements about chicken and bullfrog proteins were deceptions or incredible blunders. It is now going on four years since the PBS broadcast, and Gish has neither retracted his chicken statement nor attempted to justify it. (Obviously, the lysozyme apologetic doesn't count, but it took Gish two-and- one-half years to come up with that!) And if the Curtis story is all he knows about his chimpanzee protein, on what basis did he promise to send me its sequence at the 1983 National Bible-Science Conference? Gish has woven himself into an incredible web of contradictions, and even some creationists now suspect that he has been less than candid. [rest of article deleted] ================================= [1] Awbrey, Frank T., and Thwaites, William M. Winter 1982. "A Closer Look at Some Biochemical Data That 'Support' Creation," _Creation/Evolution_, issue VII, p. 15. [2] Gish, Duane T. August 14, 1985. "Creationism Misassailed." _Cedar Rapids Gazette_. [3] Morris, Henry M. 1984. _History of Modern Creationism_ (San Diego: Master Book Publishers), p. 316. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- By Rob Zuber: (Daniel Ortmann) writes: >E has problems with fossilized forests that were fossilized vertically >*with* leaves still intact. E has no alternative but to invoke a >"catastrophe", but does so on a "local" scale. He dare not consider As this is rather vague, I can only guess at what this is about. You may want to check Strahler's "Science and Earth History" (page 221-) for further details. From [1]: (I've also listed the references mentioned in [1]) "QUESTION: Creationists like Dr. N. A. Rupke, a geologist of the State University of Groningen in the Netherlands, claim that certain fossil trees (which they call 'polystrate fossils') extend vertically through many meters of strata. Rupke says they are found in such coal-producing areas as the Ruhr region of Germany, Lancashire in England, and Joggins in Nova Scotia. How do you reply? ANSWER: The creationists again mishandle their sources. The evidence shows that the vertical trees were really buried by flooding rivers. For instance, _Scientific Creationism_ [2] quotes F. M. Broadhurst [3] as saying: "It is clear that trees in position of growth are far from being rare in Lancashire (Teichmuller, 1956 reaches the same conclusion for similar trees in the Rhein-Westfalen Coal Measures), and presumably in all such cases there must have been a rapid rate of sedimentation." However, Broadhurst has some evidence that river floods buried these trees, evidence that the creationists do not mention. He continues: "... there must have been a rapid rate of sedimentation. This sedimentation occurred, without doubt, in water that could not have been fast-flowing, since the trees were left in a standing position. It is possible that the land surface with its trees was inundated by flood water (possibly on numerous occasions) from adjacent waterways, the flood water bringing with it large amounts of sediment." He goes on to say that fossil polystrate trees are found only in the coarse- grained rocks, but not in the fine-grained ones. The reason is that the sediments of the latter probably did not settle fast enough to bury the trees before they rotted away: "The most likely explanation of the apparent absence of such trees from these sediments is that the latter accumulated too slowly; any trees decayed and collapsed before they could be enclosed by sediments." Hence the river flood theory can explain why the trees are found upright and why trees were preserved in some rocks but not others; the creationist catastrophe theory cannot. =================================== [1] Weber, Christopher Gregory "Common Creationist Attacks on Geology" Creation/Evolution II, p. 14. [2] "Scientifc Creationism." ed. by Henry M. Morris. General ed. Creation- Life Publishers: San Diego, CA, 1974, p. 108 [3] Broadhurst, F. M. "Some Aspects of the Palaeoecology of Non-Marine Faunas and Rates of Sedimentation in the Lancashire Coal Measures". American Journal of Science, Vol. 262 (Summer, 1964), pp. 858-869. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- By Chris Colby: (Daniel Ortmann) writes: >We are talking of high caliber >scientists, who happen to be Christians and creationists. These people >(also myself) have great moral accountability to be honest and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >*guileless*. See the paragraph below (it is from an article I wrote a while ago). Also, I'll be waiting to see your "great moral accountability" regarding evidence for the intellectual dishonesty of evolutionists. I don't view slandering hard-working, honest scientists without any evidence to back up your point as honest or guileless. >Any Christian who tries to falsify evidence has to face ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >God. Even when no one else is looking, God is. A recent issue of the journal _Evolution_ (1) has a book review of Berra's book, "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism." It also contains some examples of recent creationist rhetoric, including this accusation. John Morris (2) asserts that issues of Evolution "frequently feature articles which describe how modern society should be shaped." These articles, according to Morris, encourage killing "older or weaker members unable to contribute to the good of the larger group." This is an outright lie by an ICR member. Would you consider this falsifying evidence? REFERENCES: (1) Shapiro, 1991, A myth is as good as a mile, Evolution 45: 1061 - 1062 (2) Morris, 1990, Why do we marry? Back to Genesis #20, ICR, El Cajon, C.A. (quotes taken from Shapiro's article, not the original tract) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- By Andy Peters: (Derek Abbott) writes: >I've tried to track down references by Gish, as I think it is possibly >more concrete to critique his actual writings than second hand oral >accounts of his talks. > >This is what I came up with: [A listing of books 1-4] >[5] "Dinosaurs: those terrible lizards," Master Books, 1977 This is the one that scares me the most. It's a children's book! Why does it scare me? Because Gish uses the same bullshit tactics to preach to little kids as he does with adults. Here's what the blurb on the back of the book says: "No one living in the world today has ever seen a real live dinosaur - but did people in earlier times live with dinosaurs? Were dragons of ancient legends really dinosaurs? Does the Bible speak about dinosaurs? The answers are in this book!" Gish first gives a brief overview of very basic facts about dinosaurs & dinosaur fossils: definition of "dinosaur," global distribution of fossils. Then he has a section called "Where did dinosaurs come from?" He gives one paragraph "explaining" evolution. His "definition" of evolution stresses "in-between forms," and the dates "about 200 million years ago" and "about 70 million years ago." Then he spends four paragraphs on creation: one paragraph on a definition, and three on biblical grounds for creation. His next section begins, "Is there scientific evidence that Man and dinosaurs lived at the same time?" He stresses that if they did we would be very unlikely to see actual fossils of them together, because of patchy fossilization. Then comes (you'll never guess) - the Paluxy River footprints. He ends this section with, "Are there human footprints and dinosaur footprints together in Paluxy River bottom? . . . We will not be able to say absolutely sure one way or the other until more work is done." In addition to all of this, the illustration on this page is of a human walking next to a dinosaur, both leaving footprints. Scary, huh? (By the way, the latest version of this was published in '88, and it's still on sale today - you've gotta love guys who lie to kids) Next comes the biblical evidence for the coexistence of man with dinosaurs - description of the "behemoth" (Job 40: 15-24) Then Gish gives descriptions of various kinds of dinosaurs, interspersing them with quotes like, "If this strange creature [_Triceratops_] slowly evolved, as evolutionists believe, then we aught to be able to find transitional forms . . . but none are found!", and lots of talk about the "purposes" of various structures (i.e. _Stegosaurus'_ plates). My favorite quote from this section is, "[again, about _Stegosaurus] Not a single such in-between form can be found! . . . This is good evidence that these creatures did not evolve but were created by God." (p. 25) (The old "if evolution isn't true, our version of creation must be" argument - this time being used against children!) Eventually Gish gives up all appearances of impartiality in this section, saying things like "No in-between forms! That's because God created them." (p. 27) The next section is called "Ancestors for Birds?" and says such things as "The bird type hip suddenly appears in certain kinds of dinosaurs, with no in-between forms showing where the bird-hip came from. That's because God created them!" (p. 49) The next section is five pages entitled "Dragons and Bombardier Beetles." Of course, this section focuses on how the Bombardier beetle ("Mr. B. B.") couldn't have evolved his defense mechanism: "Could evolution make all of that happen by a zillion accidents? No way!" (p. 55) Of course, no reference to the fact that this argument has been shown to be a bunch of hooey. The last section is "Whatever Became of the Dinosaurs?" Gish's answer? Weather changes caused them to go extinct. I think we all know what his mechanism for the weather changes is (Hint: Starts with an F, ends with a D, and has LOO (as in toilet) in the middle). DISCLAIMER: Unlike Derek (who actually did a good job of being unbiased), I didn't separate my comments from my summary. However, the summary parts are as unbiased as I could make them. In addition, I'd like to assure everyone that all the ellipses [. . .] in the above quotations _do not_ remove anything from the meaning of the quotes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- By Chris Stassen: Chuck Maier writes: [A lot about a number of Bible verses and how they support his reading of Genesis. I'm just going to pick one example to make a more general point about how Chuck is reading Scripture:] > > Recall we're discussing whether the N.T. writers believed in the > historicity of Genesis. vs. 39 reads "All flesh is not the same; > one KIND is human; another KIND is animal, another is fowl, > another is fish." > > This clearly a reference to the separately created kinds, as in > Genesis. I think Chuck is stretching here, badly. This verse is far from being in alignment with his beliefs. I was thinking about posting it myself, and was shocked to see a creationist produce it. My translation says that each is of "one flesh." The clear meaning, under Chuck's assumption that it is a reference to "created kinds," is that there is only *one* "kind" each of fish, animal, and bird. I don't know of many "creationists" who would accept that, except maybe the old-earth variety. > Is it any wonder any wonder that ardent evolutionists want to keep our > schoolchildren in the dark about the facts, scientific and biblical. I rarely stoop to responding to stuff like this, but I will make an exception for Chuck, who usually sounds more reasonable than this. Regarding theology, I am sure that the geocentrists could give us some Biblical "facts" to oppose heliocentric astronomy. Would you vote for their inclusion in a science class? Regarding science, here is an exercise for anyone who wants to (as Chuck apparently does) claim that creationists have any interest in giving honest information to people: Call the ICR's publishing house (Master Books) at 619-448-1121. Order catalog item "CRESAM," a sampler of creationism pamphlets, for $2.95 (plus $3 s/h). Read "Have You Been Brainwashed?" -- you will receive four copies, so you can get three friends to participate and split the costs. In it, you will note claims of human and dinosaur footprints together at the Paluxy River site. Also, note claims that the precambrian is void of fossils. (See below for evidence that Gish, the author of the pamphlet and very influential in the ICR, knew the latter claim to be false as of 1985.) Call a noted scientific publisher, say, Sinauer or W.H. Freeman. See if you can find a book that uses piltdown or nebraska man to build a case for human evolution. You will fail. Now, tell me: based on the results of your exercise, which side cares about presenting "facts"? Which side is diligent about refusing to propagate misproven or misleading "information"? Why do you think this is so? ======================================================================= Below is a written transcript that I made from a videotape of the Gish/Plimer debate in 1988. Plimer obtained a copy of the same pamphlet, and hammered Gish for the inaccuracies in it. ======================================================================= These are from the video tape of the March 18, 1988 debate between Ian Plimer and Duane Gish. The debate took place in Australia; the video tape has been converted to American TV format and my own copy is an unknown-number-of-times removed from the original and is of mediocre quality (especially the sound). When I am not sure of a word, it appears with a question mark following. Editorial remarks are in [square brackets]. All punctuation is my own invention, which I use in an attempt to convey the flow of the talk. Note that Plimer, in my opinion, was overly aggressive and mean-spirited in this debate. I don't think that he conducted himself well during much of the debate. However, in my opinion he thrashed Gish mainly due to the same pamphlet which is discussed above. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plimer's statement during his 45-minute debate speech: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - What I want to now talk about are some of our scientific publications which come from our (?) creationists. The creationists will not allow refutations by scientists. They will not allow a process of improving or correcting. I use the same principle. [I am not sure what Plimer means by "[using] the same principle." Either he is saying that *he* won't allow a "process of improving or correcting" either, or he is saying that he is using the same principle of investigating creationist claims as he had been using earlier in his talk.] And I use our friend's book, or booklet -- it's more like a comic -- which is called "Are You Being Brainwashed?" [Plimer gets the title wrong, I think] I go to page 8. There is a diagram there that says, "precambrian: void of fossils." That is a lie. The precambrian is not void of fossils; the precambrian is extremely rich in fossils. He [Gish] has come to the country where there are many precambrian fossils going back to 3 thousand 3 hundred million years ago. On the same diagram, he says the "earth's crust" is "void of fossils." That is a lie. Every fossil found on this planet is from the earth's crust. That is from his book, "Are You Being Brainwashed?" page 8. We also see on the same page, the Cambrian; a geological time period some time ago. And I quote, "The billions of fossils found are all of highly complex forms of life." That is a lie. There on one simple diagram we have three lies. That is their scientific publication. [The diagram appears to be unchanged in the current copy.] We turn now to page 9. And we read, "not a single indisputable multicellular fossil has been found anywhere in the world in a rock supposedly older than Cambrian rocks." That is a lie. But what (?) we see is a repetition of these lies, all the time. "You don't find fossils in old rocks; you don't find fossils in old rocks; you don't find fossils in old rocks." And eventually someone believes them. So we've read two or three (?) pages and we've got ourselves four lies. And we have an interesting situation here. [Plimer digresses for a while about Australian creationist Andrew Snelling who claimed that precambrian rocks are rich in fossils. I omit that section because it is not relevant to the pamphlet, other than in showing that some creationists contradict Gish.] And continuing with page 9, "billions of highly complex animals... just suddenly appear, with no signs of gradual development from lower forms." That is a lie. So we now have 55 words and 5 lies. One lie every 11 words in his publication. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Gish's response during his 10-minute rebuttal period - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Now, furthermore, Dr. Plimer quoted from my book, or little "Brainwashed" booklet, written 17 years ago. It's a little, ah, book, you might call it a comic-style book, it's not written in comic terms at all, but it was written 17 years ago. And at that time, according to Dr. Preston Cloud, one of the world's leading evolutionary geologists, there were no undoubted precambrian fossils. [crowd noise] That's what he said. [More crowd noise] And I quoted, many years ago, Dr. Cloud to that effect. Because he said, first of all, you would not know, you could not establish whether these rocks were precambrian or cambrian... some of these rocks [oops! -CS]. And furthermore there were many pseudo-fossils that had been discovered. Now, since that time, as I described in my debate, there are many published reports of micro-fossils in precambrian rocks. And furthermore, the Ediacaran which I did describe in my talk, is supposed to be precambrian. I discussed all of them in my book, "Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record," which was published two years ago. [Note here that Gish is saying that he *knows* now that there are precambrian fossils, and that he has known it for at least a couple of years.] Why didn't Dr. Plimer consult this book? [crowd noise] Why didn't he see what I had written that is up to date? To accuse me of lying is terribly, terribly wrong. I stated the facts as I knew them then, as Preston Cloud and others have stated. In this edition [waving book], 1985, 15 years later, I have published what I described in my lecture. Dr. Plimer completely ignored what I said in my lecture, and what I said in my book, to try to accuse me of lying. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Plimer's response during his 10(?)-minute rebuttal period - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [crowd noise] This little book seems to have caused a little trouble with our friend. It was written 17 years ago and he refuted it. Why is it I could buy it outside, 20 minutes ago? [crowd noise] [And the ICR is *still* selling it without correction or disclaimer. Gish got hammered for distributing the pamphlet in 1988. He admitted that he knew no later than 1985 that some of the claims in it were false. WHY IS THE ICR STILL SELLING IT?]


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank