Public debate between ID and others

[Dr.Ex-YEC]

@Eddie

Are you willing to go one-on-one in a public debate with a Discovery scientist? Would you go up on a stage with Meyer or Behe or Sternberg or Gauger, with a podcast showing the debate all over the internet? Supposing, hypothetically, that I could, through contacts, arrange for such a debate with you.

That’s funny. Kudos to you.

Some of us remember the old Amazon book review comment section debates between the Bible.and.Science.Forum professors and Stephen Meyer. (And don’t forget Stephen Meyer’s assistant who would spend many hours there praising Darwin’s Doubt without identifying himself as being paid to do so, even though he used his real name). Those conversations, or whatever they should be called, would get republished in the old BSF newsletter that came out on Saturdays and usually had the best exchanges of that week. So your debate challenge made me smile.

When Professor Tertius was still active on-line (I think he’s been severely limited by some kind of palsy), he challenged the Discovery Institute to a written debate on many occasions. (I don’t remember if Professor OldTimer was involved with the Bible and Science Forum at that time or not.) The BSF newsletter also had excerpts from Prof T’s challenges of Meyer under some Youtube videos. Perhaps those are still online. I know that some of his old posts are still on Youtube because just the other day I saw one of his old Youtube usernames there where both his Research Assistant’s name and his name appeared together. (So watch for something like “Allen Joseph/Professor Tertius” under various Discovery Institute videos.)

Obviously, audio debates provide negligible rigor and many become little more than publicity stunts. There’s no means for footnotes and deceptive quote-mines are much more easily thrown about without being exposed. Written debates keep people honest, or at least should. (Some have no shame, so for some, the format may not matter.) The later BSF newsletter included reprints of the ongoing debate challenges to young earth creationists and to IDers like Meyer which Prof T proposed be divided into two parts: a scientific debate and a philosophical/theological debate. (Meyer is quite ignorant of the science topics but he does have a strong background in philosophy. Of course, as one would expect, he was shy about both. Meyer doesn’t like formats where he can be challenged, especially if he has to stay around and can’t run to the airport to avoid cross-examination like he did at the Dover Trial.)

Speaking of the Dover Trial, after that embarrassing cross-ex, a debate with Michael Behe would serve no purpose other than rubbing it in his face. Behe couldn’t defend his scientific claims even against an attorney who had bothered to familiarize himself with the many evolutionary biology journal articles which Behe hadn’t bothered to look up. Besides, Behe testified under oath that his definition of science and his wanting more equal time in the classroom for other perspectives on science would include astrology in an astronomy class!

When Behe’s own academic institution and department has to publish a blatant disclaimer and rejection of his scholarship on the school’s website, I don’t know why any academic would consider it worth
his/her time to debate Behe. Nevertheless, I’d give him credit for being the only Discovery Institute “academic expert witness” who didn’t run to the airport and leave town as fast as they could. Meyer et al saw how badly Behe’s pseudo-science was destroyed by peer-reviewed science from someone who bothered to do the basic research they ignored. So Meyer did the only sensible thing. Running from THAT public debate was probably one of the smartest decisions Meyer ever made.

If Meyer lacked the courage to defend his ID theory (or lack thereof, actually) at Dover, why do you think he’s be brave enough to take on a rigorous academic debate?

I remember similar re-published exchanges/debates with Jason Lisle under his Ultimate Proof of God Amazon review. Lisle was just as bashful about a formal debate and anybody who read the exchanges between Lisle and Professor Tertius, where Dr. David Levin of Boston University also flagging the pseudo-science bloopers, would understand why Lisle has no interest in rigorous written debates where he’d have to compete on a scholarly level.

I doubt that anyone here thinks you or anybody else has any likelihood of talking any ID or Young Earth Creationist ministry celebrity into overcoming their reluctance to subject themselves to the rigor of an on-line written debate. But after seeing your challenge, I wrote my favorite professor and former faculty adviser (my Master’s thesis adviser, in fact) at the Bible & Science Forum, and he said that the debate challenge to the Discovery Institute still stands: “Certainly!” So if you can overcome their shyness towards a carefully structured and thorough debate, where Meyer’s appalling lack of understanding of basic paleontological and genomic science would be exposed for all to see, I for one will stock up on popcorn and enjoy the carnage.

Perhaps you and I could coordinate our respective contacts at the Discovery Institute and at the Bible and Science Forum and bring about the ultimate rigorous debate. LOL. Considering Meyer’s non-performance at the Dover Trial, I consider your optimism about Meyer actually showing up for such a debate surprising but commendable. (If nothing else, the Dover Trial proved to us that Meyer does seem to know when he doesn’t have a ghost of a chance in a public debate!)

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

Just a reminder that no one has to identify themselves or prove their credentials. I’m moving this side conversation about ID/TE/EC debates to a separate topic.

[Dr.Ex-YEC]

@Christy

Just a reminder that no one has to identify themselves or prove their credentials. I’m moving this side conversation about ID/TE/EC debates to a separate topic.

I find it interesting how often that reminder is necessary on so many Christian forums. What good would it do for vulnerable academics at evangelical educational institutions, Bible societies, missionary organizations, and parachurch ministries to post using pseudonyms but then to fully identified the on-line organization they formed to provide a safe environment for discussion of origins?

Perhaps some participants also need to be reminded that some visitors to the Biologos forums teach at conservative schools where even the mention of being open to evolutionary explanations or old earth viewpoints can lead to termination of employment within hours. (Need we mention that Dr. Bruce Waltke is only one of many such examples of a quick change in employment?)

The following comes from the preface of a 2008 Bible.and.Science.Forum email newsletter article’s preface:

Professor Tertius was my faculty adviser when I was getting my Masters. You could say that I was one of the Bible.and.Science.Forum founding members when we all met at Denny’s for supper after an Evangelical Theological Society meeting years ago. In the course of informal conversation, we slowly and carefully realized and admitted that all of us shared a common background: we were all former “creation science” fans back in the 1960’s and 1970’s when The Genesis Flood captured our interest. Some were even recognized as rising acolytes and speaking circuit stars of “scientific Young Earth Creationism.” Today, we are all recovering ex-YECs who now recognize the great age of the earth and the realities of evolutionary processes in God’s plan. So even though we differ on some details of our theologies, we all either affirm or at least assume no conflict with the theory of evolution and the major conclusions of modern geology and paleontology. Some of us are now refugees who eventually found safe jobs or the relative safety of retirement, while others are still trying to survive on very conservative campuses where academic freedom and freedom of speech is non-existent—and academic tenure is effectively meaningless if it exists at all. (Nobody wants to lose their pension and worse.)

If I had a more complete About Us at hand, I would post it. But that background should be sufficient to understand why BSF was formed.

That said, I’ve been fascinated at how there are always a few evidence-deniers on virtually ever Internet forum who are obsessed with “outing” any and all evangelical academics who dare follow the scriptural and scientific evidence wherever it leads. They could critique ideas without regard to who is defending those ideas, but many of them prefer a short-cut: They want to determine the identities and institutional affiliations of their pseudonymous opponents and then do all that they can to “complicate” if not terminate their employment at evangelical institutions and ministry organizations. (Many of them think that they are doing the Lord’s work in purging all such “dangerous” individuals from evangelical campuses.)

It is regrettable that some people can’t debate the merits of ideas so instead they look for personalities, affiliations, and credentials they can attack. (The ChristianForums.org website used to see a lot of that behavior. Perhaps it still does.) In a prior BSF newsletter Professor Tertius told the story of how he came to adopt a pseudonym for his origins-related online postings after his car was vandalized with dozens of paint-destroying anti-evolution and pro-creation-science bumper stickers. They were angry that their protests had not convinced the church to cancel his Sunday morning sermon, a worship service message which had nothing to do with origins or evolution topics.

Perhaps my experience is atypical but every time I see someone complaining about the use of pseudonyms on an origins discussion forum, the complainant always turns out to be a fan of one of the following: The Discovery Institute, AIG, ICR, or CMI/Creation.com. Why is that? (Just wondering aloud. I’m not starting a new tangent or forum topic.)

[Dr.Ex-YEC]

@Eddie

Your distinction between the rigor of audio and video debates is entirely specious.

When I talked about the debate challenge to the Discovery Institute from the BSF newsletter, I made no such contrast between audio and video debates. So you need to address that complaint about audio vs video debates to whoever posted it. (The BSF challenge contrasted face-to-face debate publicity events—whether audio or video events is irrelevant—versus carefully structured and rigorous written debates. I think each round of the written debate was supposed to have a two week time limit. Readers could see every footnotes or lack of footnotes. No deceptive quote-mining neatly shrugged off as Duane Gish used to do in so many of his debates.)

@Eddie

My offer stands. The two-week clock is ticking. There are 13 days left for the person to take up the offer.

Seriously? Is the public nervously watching the clock count down?

@Eddie, the Biologos statistics say that “3 users” have visited this thread. (At least, that’s what I assume a “user” is.) So the three users/visitors here would be you, Christy, and me. So I’d be surprised if anybody else has read your “challenge” and “offer”, as you call it. Unless you’ve written the Bible.and.Science.Forum at their Gmail address, I doubt if they have any idea who you are or what challenge you’ve made.

Add your clock count-down of the days remaining in your challenge to your win-by-silence arguments, and I have to wonder if you playing some sort of prank. According to my daughter-in-law, that’s the kind of taunting and daring that my junior high grand-kids post on their Facebook pages when they argue. (“She left so everybody knows that I won. She was silent so I know I left her with nothing to say.”)

You’ll never get anybody at the Discovery Institute to participate in a rigorous written debate. They would have to be able to document their claims with valid citations which people can check and not ridicule. That was the downfall of Darwin’s Doubt. They have too much to lose in any debate involving a text or transcript. Again. They ran for cover at the Dover trial because they knew that a public transcript of their testimony and cross-examination would humiliate and expose the gaps in their knowledge just as badly as it humiliated Michael Behe. All of the Discovery Institute witnesses except Behe ran from that very consequential debate at Dover. So why do you think they would suddenly find the courage to debate other academics? According to the BSF challenge, Professor Tertius was to be joined by a paleontologist from Brown University and a microbiologist from Boston University, the same three scholars who had shredded Darwin’s Doubt in the Amazon book review debates. (In the BSF newsletter forum highlights I have, Meyer left his P.R. assistant to try and defend the book. It was not a pretty sight.)

Dover was their big chance to present and defend ID theory for all to see. But they all changed their minds and left town. They didn’t want to go through what Behe went through on the stand, where his own testimony and publications were used against him to show his ignorance of what had been published by his academic peers.

The DI goose is cooked and that is why they’ve been losing major staff there. Most foundations won’t touch them and funding will continue to be problematic. Calling evolution a theory in crisis yet again won’t help their credibility any. It was embarrassing enough the first time around.

@Eddie

but when challenged by me, he backed down and went silent

Are you actually serious?

I’m under no delusions of thinking that everybody on Biologos reads everything I post here. So I don’t interpret anybody’s silence as some sort of win for me because they “backed down and went silent” as you say. (Being ignored and winning an imagined debate are not the same thing.) That conclusion is so adolescent that I’m embarrassed for myself that I even commented on this topic.

That’s all I have to say here on this “Public debate between ID and others” topic. You can have the last word and then claim that I “backed down” because you won. No words. Ewww.

[Dr.Ex-YEC]

I came back to fix a typo caused by my software and saw your disclaimers. This is my last post on this topic:

@Eddie , I never read tag notification from online forums. I’ve be surprised if many others do. I regularly read on three active forums and get probably 60+ tag notifications per day, which Gmail automatically routes to the SOCIAL tab of its email reader, which I never read. (Does anybody??) Biologos is just as typical in sending out a lot of tag notifications (although that can be adjusted I assume) and I just today noticed that private user messages are buried among them as well, making them all the less likely to be noticed. . In fact I just discovered that you and others have been sending me private messages for weeks now and I’ve never read any of them. When I was a moderator for another Christian forum, I received several hundred tag notifications per day. No, I didn’t read those either. I’d be amazed if many people do. And every time I’ve sent an email to the Bible.and.Science.Forum, if it is personally answered, it is always by one of the grad students unless I write to the private address of my professor of long ago. You are fooling yourself if you think any of the professors are seeing your messages if you send them anywhere but to their private email addresses. (How many non-formletter answers did you receive in reply?) If they personally read tag notifications from any forum, I will eat my hat.

If the Discovery Institute ever works up the courage they lacked at the Dover Trial, I will eat a second hat.

This has gotten far too silly. Goodbye.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Eddie

Your distinction between the rigor of audio and video debates is entirely specious.

Hello Eddie,

I don’t see where Dr. Ex-YEC made such a distinction. It appears to be a figment of your imagination.

@Eddie

My purpose in making my challenge was not to “out” anyone here on BioLogos. Rather, it was to offer certain people here the opportunity to show the ironclad nature of their case against ID, by participating in a public debate with an ID person.

Like Dr. Ex-YEC, I don’t see any real value in an oral debate. It’s too, too easy for the pseudoscientist to obfuscate. A written debate, however, is another matter.

Perhaps you could point everyone to an example of a scientific disagreement that was resolved by a public, oral debate if you disagree.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

[quote=“Eddie, post:8, topic:4609”]
Finally, various claims on internet sites of scientific publications, scientific teaching positions held, seminary teaching positions held, etc. are often bogus, an attempt to bluff others out, and such claims would be exploded in live debate, where the person’s academic record would be published in advance of the debate.[/quote]
Such as yours here?

Thus, stripped naked of all religious fakery, all academic fakery, and all identity fakery, a person in oral debate must demonstrate what he really knows, not what he pretends to know – and that is a much better debate situation to have than the internet situation.

I don’t see that Dr. Ex-YEC proposed a written debate with pseudonyms, so your argument is a straw man.

Regarding your other point, I am quite sure that Old Timer saw my challenge. First of all, it was originally under another column where it responded directly to Old Timer, until the moderator moved it to its own column. Second, the “tag” system informs Old Timer of incoming responses. Finally, I have written to him several times via the private message system, and the “tag” system informs him of those messages, too. So if Old Timer does not rise to the challenge, it is because he does not wish to, not because he did not see my post.

Your challenge is a juvenile joke.