Jul1093 03:34PM Gish Answers His Critics Here are Gish's comments from this weeks broadcas

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

Skeptic Tank!

Jul-10-93 03:34PM Gish Answers His Critics Here are Gish's comments from this weeks broadcast of the ICR's "Science, Scripture & Salvation." Enjoy. --------------------------------------------------------------- Host: Although our educational institutions are dominated by an evolutionary view of the world, the creation movement has nonetheless exploded in growth in recent years. Now that the evolutionists have finally awakened to this, they're reacting vigorously. A part of their campaign to mute creation has included an avalanche of articles and books attacking creation. Today, creationism's best known debater will answer their charges. [Theme music.--rht] Host: The well-travelled Dr. Duane Gish, vice president of the Institute for Creation Research is our guest on this broadcast of "Science, Scripture, and Salvation" as we complete our two-part series, "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics." Indeed, that's the title of Dr. Gish's latest book. It will be out in a few weeks, and we're getting a bit of a preview as to the contents of that book. Last week, Dr. Gish, you said probably the most frequent criticism that we receive at ICR is that we are promoting something called "creation science" which is really religion -- at least that's what the evolutionists say -- that evolution is the only scientific model of origins. Well, you dealt with that, I think, very thoroughly. You also said that another frequent criticism is that when we quote evolutionists in our books and in our debates that we misquote or take things out of context. Why don't you address that, and also is that something that you bring up in your latest book, _Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics_? Gish: Yes, Mark. One of the chapters in my book is entitled "Scientific Integrity." Now, as you have mentioned, Mark, evolutionists frequently accuse creation scientists of dishonesty -- sometimes of outright lying -- distorting science, misquoting evolutionists and so forth and so on. That charge has been made against me, and it's outrageously false. I remember one occasion at [I can't make out the name of the place that Gish says here--rht] University in Canada, I quoted Dr. E. J. H. Corner [sp?--rht] in one of the books that, uh, a chapter he had on the evolution of plants. And he said in that chapter, that, although he believed there was much evidence for evolution from certain fields, he still believed that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants was in favor of special creation. Well, a professor got up in my lecture, after my lecture [no, that is not a transcription error--rht] and accused me of quoting out of context. So, I just lifted the article out of my briefcase and quoted the entire page. And the more I quoted, the worse it got for the evolutionists. And, a few years ago, Dr. Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, in an article published in the evolutionist journal _Creation/Evolution_, also in a book, he accused me of misquoting Corner. He claimed, and this is in a publication, he claimed that I had left out an important word. What he said was that Dr. Corner said that it was a fossil record of "higher plants" that was in favor of special creation, and I had deliberately left out the word "higher" in order to distort Dr. Corner's true meaning. I don't know how that would have done that anyhow, but nevertheless, that is a totally false charge. Corner does not use the word "higher" in that quotation. He said that he still believed that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants was in favor of special creation. He did not use the word "higher." Now, I can't understand how a professor like Ken Miller could have made a charge against a fellow scientist of that nature unless he had both statements right in front of his eyes, or he had complete documentation, and if he had that right in front of his eyes, he'd have known that I did not misquote Corner, that Corner did not use the word "higher." So it was Professor Miller who was misquoting, not me. [SEE NOTE #1] But that was a charge that was commonly reported in the literature against a creationist, a totally false charge. So, often these charges are made. Now, when these charges are made against me personally, I challenge these people (to) go to my literature, my books, and so forth, or any statements I have made, and specifically document those charges. They've never been able to do that. They've never really done that. [SEE NOTE #2] They've made similar charges against Henry Morris, and other creation scientists. Now, in doing that, they accuse us of dishonesty, you see. And when people do that in a debate that I have, for example, I just point out to the audience, that apparently, this person feels that his case is weak. Because if his case was strong, if he had adequate scientific evidence, he would not have to resort to these _ad hominem_ attacks against a creationist, you see. [SEE NOTE #3] Well, these are some of the things that I respond to, some of these charges, that we have misquoted, quoted out of context, that's in my chapter "Scientific Integrity." Then, in this book, _Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics_, I answer some of their claims against us, that is, you know, in our literature, in our lectures, in debates, we point out the tremendous scientific evidence for creation from the fossil record, from the science of thermodynamics, and other fields. Now, evolutionists have tried to counter these arguments, you see. They claim, for example, well, there is some evidence for transitional forms, and they maintain that we creation scientists do not understand the science of thermodynamics, and so forth and so on, which is totally false. And even one of our leading creation scientists, who served for twenty years as dean of engineering at one of the leading schools in the Midwest, universities in the Midwest, one of these evolutionists accused him of being ignorant of the science of thermodynamics, and so forth, which is outrageously false. So I deal in detail with these attacks and counterattacks on the nature of the fossil record, the science of thermodynamics, and these other areas of science, defending the creationist position, pointing out why we are correct, and they are actually incorrect. [SEE NOTE #4] And I also critique in detail several books. There's a book by Philip Kitcher entitled _Abusing Science_. The title is _Abusing Science_. He accuses the creationists of _Abusing Science_. I answer in detail a book by Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History entitled _Monkey Business_. Then there's a book edited by Laurie Godfrey entitled _Scientists Confront Creationists_, and that particular title is entitled [again, not a transcription error--rht] "Science Confronts Evolutionists." And I answer in detail each chapter in that book written by various scientists, various evolutionist scientists against the creationists, you see, discussing in detail the evidence from various fields of science, and our position versus their position. And so this is what we're doing in this book. You know, Mark, many many people have questioned us about this criticism. You know, what about this? What about these charges by the evolutionists? What about their, you know, the various points that they make? What is our answer to this? Well, this is a book that is going to go a long way in doing so. Now, I have no material in there on geology and the dating systems. The book is already 500 pages and I felt that those areas, geology and radiometric dating, should be dealt with by people who are specifically trained in those arease. And so perhaps that can be dealt with in a later publication. But these deal with some of these [once again, not a transcription error--rht] critically important subjects, that creation scientists are answering their critics and some of these specific charges against us. Host: Perhaps you can share some anecdotes with us of debate experiences you've had recently, and perhaps some of the arguments that evolutionists still try to bring forward, including thermodynamcis and the fossil record, and also is creationism really scientific or is it just theology? Gish: Well, Mark, several of the authors in these books that I'll be discussing, Dr. John Patterson of Iowa State University, Fred Edwords who is administrator of the American Humanist Association, the largest atheist organization in the United States, Dr. Eugenie Scott who heads up the National Center for Science Education, that's it, really, she's it, and it's an anti-creationist organization. John Patterson is a man who claims that we creation scientists are ignorant about thermodynamics. He's the expert. He has taught thermodynamics at Iowa State University as a professor there. Actually, my first two debates with John Patterson in the state of Iowa, I made a major issue of the science of thermodynamics, and I pointed out how thermodynamics showed that evolution is impossible. He made practically no reply whatsoever in those debates to my argument ["arguments?"--rht] based on thermodynamics, and yet he alleged that he is the expert and we are ignorant concerning the science of thermodynamics. No, that's not true at all. The evolutionists simply do not have a valid answer to the creationist argument based upon thermodynamics. Also, I debated Dr. Eugenie Scott, the head of this anti-creationist organization. Now, she will not discuss the scienctific evidence, at least she has not done so in our debates. She [unintelligible syllable] out of this red herring that, well, evolutionist science and all the evidence, [pause--rht] scientists support evolution and here are these little group [sic--rht] of creationists who are merely a religious people, which of course is simply not true. And, actually, she knows it's not true, because there are thousands of scientists who are creationists, of course. And, but that, generally the approach that these people will take [sic-rht]. My debate with Fred Edwords, he is a philosopher, he has no degree in science at all. Not that he's not knowledgable in many areas, but he is defending essentially the atheist position, although he certainly will not state that he's an atheist, or take that position, although Dr. Patterson has done so. So, well, in these debates, we had the opportunity to emphasize the fact that creation is just as scientific as evolution. Evolution, certainly, is just as religious as creation. And these are some of the very important points that I will be covering in this book, _Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics_. Host: Our guest for the past two weeks has been Dr. Duane Gish, vice president of the Institute for Creation Research, and the author of the newly released book, _Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics_. So much disinformation has been put out regarding creation and its scientists that Dr. Gish felt compelled to write this book to defend creation. . . [END TRANSCRIPTION] Comments? This transcript is unofficial and is posted without permission. rich trott@gandalf.rutgers.edu ===================================================================== [NOTE #1] In Gish's book, he only reports that Miller made this charge, in his article "Answers to the Standard Creationist Arguments" in the Winter 1982 _Creation/Evolution_. Miller does indeed make this charge, and he was indeed in error to make it. Gish has a major fixation on this error--he brought it up in his 1988 debate with Kenneth Saladin, out of the blue, in his first rebuttal (pp. 55-56 of the transcript distributed by the NCSE). Saladin's commentary on this transcript points out an interesting fact: As Gish is well aware, though, and failed to tell this audience, the error was caught and Miller published an apology and correction in the same journal (Letter in _Creation/Evolution_ IX:41-43). Miller explained how the error originated, and gave the entire, corrected quote from Corner. It would have been more honest of Gish to mention Miller's public apology and retraction rather than to harp on it now, six years later, as if it were an ongoing offense. [Now it's 11 years later, and Gish is still harping on it--and his book makes no mention of Miller's retraction and apology. -jjl] [NOTE #2] This is a flat-out lie. In 1986, Ed Friedlander was distributing a manuscript titled "An examination of Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.'s use of scientific references in _Evolution? The Fossils Say No!_" which placed Gish's quotations side-by-side with photocopies of the full quotations from the sources quoted. Saladin's debate transcript gives several examples. Gish's book mentions neither Friedlander nor Saladin at any point. I am in the process of preparing a critique of Gish's new book which points out his incredibly dishonest presentation. The above example regarding Miller is one of many examples of where he omits relevant facts in a self-serving manner. [NOTE #3] Gish's book is itself filled with _ad hominems_. [NOTE #4] What is Gish's training in thermodynamics and the fossil record? He felt competent enough to address those. How many articles from _Creation/Evolution_ does Gish address in his book? One. Just one--Christopher Gregory Weber's first article on the bombardier beetle. And Gish admits that, as Weber says, hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide to not explode when mixed. He goes on to argue that Weber still hasn't explained how the bombardier beetle could have evolved-- but doesn't bother to mention Weber's second article which offers a possible explanation. (Gish does cite Robert Kofahl's reply to Weber's first article--which immediately preceded Weber's second article. He had to have known of its existence.) Jim Lippard Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Dept. of Philosophy Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank