| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
18 May 2004 06:21:47 AM |
| Object: |
Shermer/Hovind debate |
The following is Michael Shermer's (of Skeptic Magazine) account of his April 29,
2004 debate with Kent Hovind at UC Irvine.
You can also read it at http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic05-10-04.html
--------------------------------------------------
E-SKEPTIC #19 FOR May 10, 2004
Copyright 2004 Michael Shermer, Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, e-Skeptic
magazine (www.skeptic.com and skepticmag@aol.com). Permission to print, distribute,
and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. We encourage you to broadcast
e-Skeptic to new potential subscribers. Newcomers can subscribe to e-Skeptic for
free by sending a blank e-mail to:
www.skeptic.com; where nothing is certain...but we're not sure about that...
------------------------
Then a Miracle Occurs
An Obstreperous Evening with the Insouciant Kent Hovind,
Young Earth Creationist and Defender of the Faith
Michael Shermer
At 7:00 pm on a balmy Southern California evening, April 29, 2004, I entered the
Physical Sciences Lecture Hall on the campus of the University of California,
Irvine, to a jammed house of over 500 people chock-a-block jammed into a 400-seat
venue. I was there at the behest of one Pastor Jason, of the OMC Youth, a campus
Christian organization, to debate Kent Hovind, Young Earth Creationist and Defender
of the Faith, on: ?Creation vs. Evolution. Creation (supernatural action) or
Evolution (natural processes)?which is the better explanation??
It was already 20 degrees warmer inside the hall than out, even before the dialogue
heated up. Hovind?s people were there in force, handing out literature at both
entrances: ?Ph.D.?s Who Are Creationists.? (See the National Center for Science
Education?s list of ?Steves? who accept evolution at http://www.natcenscied.org/.)
?Did Jesus Say Anything Regarding the Age of the Universe?? (The answer given is
yes, because in Mark 10:6, Jesus said: ?But from the beginning of Creation, God made
them male and female.? You decide.) ?Biblical Reasons the Days in Genesis Were 24
Hour Days.? ?Does Carbon Dating Prove the Earth is Millions of Years Old?? ?The
Flood of Noah: Ridiculous Myth or Scientifically Accurate?? And a 20-page booklet on
?Weird Science? and ?Creation vs. Evolution Questions and Answers.? My associates
Matt Cooper and David Naiditch accompanied me, staffing a small Skeptics Society
book table where we countered Hovind with our magazine, books, and ?How to Debate a
Creationist? and ?Baloney Detection? kits. (Matt sensed the deck was stacked against
us when they gave us a puny three-foot table while Hovind luxuriated with a couple
of eight footers?several complaints netted us near parity.)
I agreed to participate in the debate at the last minute, after the
originally-scheduled date was changed and the first debater could not attend. The
local skeptics/free thought campus group contacted me at once, encouraging me not to
participate so as not to give Hovind?and by extension all creationists?the
recognition that there is a real debate between evolution and creation. This has
always been the position of such prominent evolutionary biologists as Stephen Jay
Gould and Richard Dawkins, and they are, of course, correct?there is no debate. That
issue was settled a century ago, and evolutionary theory won hands down. They are
also right to note that public debate is not how the validity of scientific theories
is determined. And, in any case, debate is a questionable forum to determine
scientific truth because such an adversarial system more closely models the law, as
Gould noted after the Arkansas creationism trial:
"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the
discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really
have nothing to do with establishing fact?which they are very good at. Some of those
rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be
attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent?s
position. They are good at that. I don?t think I could beat the creationists at
debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms
you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about
the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day
of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
I had also been alerted to the fact that Hovind was under investigation by the I.R.S.
for tax fraud and evasion, that he believes income tax is a tool of Satan to bring
down the United States, democracy is evil and contrary to God?s law, and recommends
the infamous anti-Semitic hoax, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that he
received his doctorate from a diploma mill, and that even Ken Ham?s creationist
organization, Answers in Genesis, disavowed many of Hovind?s wackier beliefs in a
fascinating web page document entitled ?Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not
Use?. I inquired of Pastor Jason if he was aware of these charges. He acknowledged
that he was, and that his organization had looked into them; nevertheless, they
wanted to stage a debate that had nothing to do with Hovind?s personal affairs or
religious beliefs, and that was solely restricted to the scientific evidence for
evolution and creation. Of course, I am aware that there is no scientific evidence
in favor of creation, and that Hovind, like all creationists, can do nothing more
than attack evolution in hopes that the default conclusion, obedient to the logical
fallacy of the excluded middle (also known as the either-or fallacy and false
dilemma fallacy), is that if evolution is wrong then creationism must be right. I
entered the debate eyes wide shut to such extraneous matters. Hovind did not
disappoint.
I wasn?t going to write an article about this debate, having already written about my
debate with Duane T. Gish (in Why People Believe Weird Things) and having published
a number of articles and essays debunking creationists? arguments (see our booklet
How to Debate a Creationist). But internet chatter on some free thought forums on
the validity of such debates, as well as the assessment by two atheists in
attendance that, ?All-in-all, I would say that Hovind kicked some serious ***** in the
debate although he used every trick in the book to do it,? led me to pen a response
to this and the larger issue of whether scientists have a duty to defend science
when it is under attack (which, of course, we do), and what is the best strategy for
marshalling such a defense.
I cannot speak for all scientists, of course, but the Skeptics Society is a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit scientific research and educational organization with a goal (among many)
of promoting and defending science. As such, it is our job to stand up to
anti-science attacks, of which creationism has mounted ever since Darwin. Of course,
there are ways to do this without giving public recognition to creationists that
there is a real debate between evolution and creation, but if such debates are to be
staged anyway, unless there is a universal moratorium among scientists to eschew all
such activities, I reasoned, they are going to happen so we might as well meet them
with wit and aplomb.
As a general rule that applies to most paranormal and supernatural claims, at the
Skeptics Society we like to divide the world into three types of people: True
Believers, Fence Sitters, and Skeptics. True Believers will never change their minds
no matter what evidence is presented to them, and Skeptics already agree with us.
The battleground is for the Fence Sitters?those who have heard something about the
claim under question, wondered what the explanation for it might be, and perhaps
speculated on their own or considered what other explanations have been proffered.
Lacking a good explanation, the mind defaults to whatever explanation is on the
table, regardless of how improbable it may be. If you don?t understand the physics
of heat conductivity between hot coals and dead skin, the improbable theories of
positive thinking, endorphins, or Chi power for how people can walk on hot coals
barefoot without getting burned, emerge as probable. Before the science of
biogeography was pioneered and developed in the 19th century by Alfred Russel
Wallace, the default explanation for the distribution of species around the globe
was independent creation and the Noachian flood (or, among more
religiously-skeptical scientists, Lamarckian evolution and land bridges between
continents and islands). Once Wallace and Darwin demonstrated how natural selection
changes varieties into different species when they migrate into different climes,
the supernatural explanation could be abandoned in favor of a natural one.
So, one reason for participating in such questionable debates is not to convert True
Believers (since their positions are, by definition, non-negotiable), but to show
the Fence Sitters that there is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable natural explanation
for the apparently supernatural phenomenon under question. On a secondary level, we
can also reinforce Skeptics with additional intellectual firepower they can use in
their own debates with True Believers and Fence Sitters. On a tertiary level, we can
witness to both cohorts that skeptics are thoughtful, witty, and pleasant, and sans
horns, rancor, and pathos. To wit, I was handed several notes after the debate from
professed Christians whose feedback lead me to conclude that at the very least they
were convinced that skeptics are not Satanists. Here are two:
"I am a believer of Creation. However, I wanted to tell you I respected your
professionalism in your execution of what you had to say. I almost want to apologize
on behalf of some Creationists present tonight."
"I cannot say that I agree with you, but I would like to thank you for your
professional presentation, unlike your opposition."
I began my opening statement (I went first) with a question: ?How many believers in
God are here tonight?? I estimate 90 percent of the audience raised their hands. I
then looked at my watch and said, ?Oh, would you look at the time? as I began to
exit stage left. That broke up the audience and put them at ease. I then began my
Powerpoint presentation with a slide of a crop circle with SKEPTIC.COM carved in the
middle of it, noting that in skepticism and science we are in search of natural
explanations for phenomena??Is it more likely that supernatural beings fashioned
this crop circle or that natural beings created it with Photoshop?? Skepticism and
science are verbs, not nouns, I said. These are activities to understand how the
world works, not formalized positions one must defend regardless of evidence to the
contrary. I then showed a slide of a cover of the tabloid World Weekly News
featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger and an alien, with the headline, ALIEN BACKS ARNOLD
FOR GOVERNOR, concluding ?Before we say something is out of this world, we must
first make sure it is not in this world.? I added, parenthetically, that this is the
first alien I have ever seen with a buffed build?triceps and biceps bulging after an
Arnold workout! More laughter.
Then I got serious, explaining that there is no such thing as the creationist
position to debate. There are, in fact, at least 10 different creationisms, as
outlined in Eugenie Scott?s brilliant heuristic (available in SKEPTIC Vol. 10, No.
4). These include: Flat Earthers, Geocentrists, Young-Earth Creationism, Old Earth
Creationism, Gap Creationism (in reference to a large temporal gap between Genesis
chapter I:1 and chapter I:2, allowing an old earth), Day-Age Creationism (a ?day?
may be a geological epoch, allowing an old earth), Progressive Creationism (blending
Special Creation with modern science), Intelligent Design Creationism (order and
design in the world is proof of an intelligent designer), Evolutionary Creationism
(God uses evolution to bring about the universe and life), and Theistic Evolution
(nature creates bodies, God creates souls). I noted that Hovind would have to defend
his creationism not just against evolution, but against all the other creationisms,
including Ken Ham?s Answers in Genesis, who have publicly disputed many of Hovind?s
arguments.
Riffling through more slides I showed how many Christians, in fact, fully embrace the
theory of evolution?I estimate 96 million American Christians, based on a 2001
Gallup Poll in which 37 percent of Americans (107 million people) agree with this
statement: ?Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced
forms of life, but God guided this process.? Since roughly 90 percent of Americans
are Christians, this means about 96 million American Christians accept common
genealogy, descent with modification, and an old earth (the figures are rough, but
close enough to conclude that a hellova lot of Christians accept evolution). I then
added that worldwide one billion Catholics embrace evolution, as explained by Pope
John Paul II in a 1996 encyclical entitled Truth Cannot Contradict Truth (science
and religion are both right):
"New knowledge has led to the recognition that the theory of evolution is more
than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively
accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of
knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work
that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the
theory."
I concluded this portion of my opening statement by noting that even Evangelical
Born-Again Christians accept evolution, quoting President Jimmy Carter, in his
response to an attempt by a Georgia school superintendent to ban the word
?evolution? from biology textbooks:
"As a Christian, a trained engineer and scientist, and a professor at Emory
University, I am embarrassed by Superintendent Kathy Cox?s attempt to censor and
distort the education of Georgia?s students. The existing and long-standing use of
the word ?evolution? in our state?s textbooks has not adversely affected Georgians?
belief in the omnipotence of God as creator of the universe. There can be no
incompatibility between Christian faith and proven facts concerning geology,
biology, and astronomy. There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky
and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith."
I then moved to the most important slide of my presentation: the famous Sidney Harris
cartoon of two scientists at a blackboard filled with equations, with the words
?THEN A MIRACLE OCCURS? in the mathematical sequence. The caption has one scientist
saying to the other: ?I THINK YOU NEED TO BE MORE EXPLICIT HERE IN STEP TWO.? Again
and again throughout the evening I drove home the point that creationists are doing
nothing more than saying ?then a miracle occurs.? This is the ?god of the gaps?
argument?wherever an apparent gap exists in scientific knowledge, this is where God
interjects a miracle. I also noted, quite emphatically, that neither Hovind nor any
other creationist would ever present positive evidence in support of their
creationist position, because no such evidence exists. They can always and only
attack the theory of evolution and hope that no one notices that they have said
nothing that would lead to a creationist conclusion. They offer no mechanism for
creationism.
(William Dembski?s ?explanatory filter? is an attempt to reveal positive evidence for
design, as is Michael Behe?s ?irreducible complexity,? both of which are thoroughly
debunked in a number of scientific papers and books, and succinctly summarized in
our How to Debate a Creationist booklet at www.skeptic.com.) Amazingly, even though
I made this point at least half a dozen times throughout the evening, the two
atheists in attendance who recounted my defeat on the Internet both completely
missed this point: ?Never did he even try to get Hovind to defend the proposition
that creationism is true.? And: ?I can assure you that he in no way pointed out that
Hovind was neglecting his responsibility to show how and why creationism is true.?
To the contrary, that was my primary argument and the foundation of everything I
said.
The remainder of my 25-minute opening statement was dedicated to showing how the
various lines of evidence converge to the conclusion that evolution happened. Here I
did not pretend to be able to cover the vast numbers of natural facts that support
evolution; instead, I focused on consilience?the ?jumping together? of facts not
related to one another. For example, paleoanthropologists have presented us a fossil
record of human evolution quite in accord with that developed independently by
geneticists. As I noted, it?s not like these scientists all meet on the weekends in
some grand conspiracy. ?Okay, look, there are these creationists like Hovind out
there, so we?ve got to get our story straight. Let?s agree that we?ll tell everyone
that humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor between six and seven
million years ago, okay?? Interestingly, this approximates what many creationists
think is actually happening in science, although Hovind?s is the weirdest conspiracy
theory I?ve ever encountered along these lines, as he elucidated it in 1996, in his
?Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution?:
"There is definitely a conspiracy, but I don?t think that it is a human
conspiracy. I don?t believe there is a smoke filled room where a group of men get
together and decide to teach evolution in all the schools. I believe that it is at a
much higher level. I believe that it is a Satanic conspiracy. The reason these
different people come to the same conclusion is not because they all met together;
it is because they all work for the devil. He is their leader and they don?t even
know it."
(Another note given to me after the debate from ?an Evangelist Christian?Born again,?
reiterated this fear: ?I just want to tell you that we fight against a spiritual
world and Satan will do anything to blind your eyes from the truth. I just ask you
to consider this as a possibility! I will be praying for you!?)
The moment Hovind spoke the debate was over. ?I am here to win you over to Christ,?
he began. ?And I?m here to win Michael Shermer over to Christ.? With that, Hovind
lost the debate. He was not there to debate evolution v. creation, or natural v.
supernatural explanations. He was there to witness for the Lord (what we used to
call ?Amway with Bibles? when I was an Evangelical Christian at Pepperdine
University). Everything he said from there on was superfluous: Dogs come only from
dogs. Variations do not lead to new species. Design implies a designer. There is an
afterlife. The Bible is literally true in everything it says. Humans used to live
900 years. There is no right and wrong without God. Noah?s flood explains geological
formations and species distribution. Dinosaurs and humans lived simultaneously.
Dinosaurs on the Ark were very young and small. Dinosaurs died in the flood.
Radiometric dating is unreliable. Jesus said the universe is young. The Bible
explains dinosaurs (?behemoth,? ?leviathan?). The theory of evolution is a religion
that leads to communism, abortion, and atheism. Evolutionists are liars. Scientists
are arrogant (they call themselves ?Brights?!). Creationists are not allowed to
publish in scientific journals. Creationism is censored from public schools.
Microevolution may be true, but macroevolution, organic evolution, stellar
evolution, chemical evolution, and cosmic evolution are all lies perpetrated by the
lying liars who worship at the faux religion of evolution. And, of course, Jesus
died for our sins.
I began my 10-minute rebuttal by noting that Hovind is the only guy I know who can
deliver a two-hour lecture in 25 minutes (he is the fastest talker I have ever met,
with a voice like Ross Perot and a finish to each sentence that bespoke ?so
there!?). This elicited audience amusement. I again emphasized that Hovind had said
nothing in support of the creationist position, that he only attacked the theory of
evolution in hopes that the audience would then accept creationism by default, and
with regard to his divine explanations for the origin of species, I reiterated ?I
think you need to be more explicit here in step two.? I explained that creationists
do not publish in scientific journals because they do not do science; and that
creationism is not taught in public school science courses because there is nothing
to teach??God did it? makes for a short semester.
Because Hovind had said he was pro-science, I emphasized that if Young Earth
Creationists like him are right, then all of science goes out the window, not just
evolutionary biology. If the earth is only 6,000 years old, then most of cosmology,
astronomy, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, geology, paleontology, archaeology,
genetics, etc. are wrong. (Hovind gave several commercial plugs for his Dinosaur
Adventure Land theme park that teaches children biblical-based science. For example,
you can build your own Grand Canyon out of sand to see how quickly it can be done.
You can participate in Jumpasaurus, a trampoline game where you toss a ball through
a hoop and learn how you can do two things at once for Jesus. And your kids won?t
want to miss out on the Nerve-Wracking Ball, where a bowling ball hangs from a tree
limb and the child releases it to swing out and back just short of hitting him?he
wins the game if he doesn?t flinch, thereby demonstrating his faith in God?s laws.)
I noted that the fakes and mistakes of science, trotted out by Hovind and other
creationists, were all discovered, publicly revealed, and corrected by scientists,
not creationists, and that the self-correcting machinery of science is what makes it
so successful. I punctuated this point by noting the parallels between evolution
deniers and Holocaust deniers, the latter of whom accuse Holocaust historians and
survivors of lies and deceit in the same manner as the creationists accuse
scientists, and that the strategy is no more effective and no less malevolent when
employed by creationists. Finally, I suggested a number of tests of evolutionary
theory: if Hovind could produce just one example of a trilobite embedded in a fossil
bed containing hominids, I would concede that the theory of evolution is in trouble.
No such disconfirmatory evidence exists, and creationists know it, which is why they
always dodge this challenge.
During my rebuttal Hovind was furiously scanning through his hundreds of Powerpoint
slides, preparing something for every point I made, most of them irrelevant and
orchestrated to elicit derision and laughter. Even during the Q & A, Hovind was so
facile at this process that by the time the moderator finished reading the question,
he had a slide ready to go!
After the debate I was surrounded by a mob of Bible-totting students, most of whom
were exceptionally polite, friendly, and desirous to know ?why did you give up your
faith?? The question is genuinely asked out of curiosity, but there is often a
substrate inquiry implied in the voice and revealed in the eyes: ?this couldn?t
happen to me, could it?? When I answer in the affirmative that, indeed, it could
happen to anyone who is intellectually honest in their search for answers to life?s
most ponderous questions, I am sometimes accused of a false faith ab initio: ?You
were never really a Christian.? How convenient, and cognitively bullet-proof. But
tell that to my annoyed siblings and non-Christian friends, who tolerated my nonstop
evangelizing for seven years. The sentiments were quite real.
Who won the debate? Intellectually, I did, with Hovind once again conceding defeat on
the last question of the evening: ?What is the best evidence for the creation?? He
answered: ?The impossibility of the contrary? (evolution). In that simple statement,
Hovind confessed the scientific sin of all creationists: Disproving evolution does
not prove the creationist contrary. ?And then a miracle happens? is not science. To
Hovind and all creationists I say: I think you need to be more explicit here in step
two.
If you were there and assessed the outcome from audience enthusiasm for either Hovind
or me, however, then a different result might have been assessed, one that was, on
one level, foreordained. With nine out of ten people in attendance for the sole
purpose of rooting their team to victory, I stood about as much chance of winning
them over as the Los Angeles Lakers would in convincing the fans of their bitter
rivals, the Sacramento Kings, that they are the better basketball team, regardless
of the score. The home-court advantage is a potent force in intellectual venues no
less than athletic ones.
The problem is that this is not an intellectual exercise, it is an emotional drama.
For scientists, the dramatis personae are evolutionists v. creationists, the former
of whom have an impregnable fortress of evidence that converges to an unmistakable
conclusion; for creationists, however, the evidence is irrelevant. This is a
spiritual war, whose combatants are theists v. atheists, spiritualists v.
secularists, Christians v. Satanists, godfearing capitalists v. godless communists,
good v. evil. With stakes this high, and an audience so stacked, what chance does
any scientist have in such a venue? Thus, I now believe it is a mistake for
scientists to participate in such debates and I will not do another. Unless there is
a subject that is truly debatable (evolution v. creation is not), with a format that
is fair, in a forum that is balanced, it only serves to belittle both the
magisterium of science and the magisterium of religion.
If you'd like to join the distribution list (it's FREE), e-mail
----------------------------------------------------
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer/Hovind debate |
18 May 2004 09:06:44 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message news:<2guabrF6qc4qU1@uni-berlin.de>...
The following is Michael Shermer's (of Skeptic Magazine) account of his April 29,
2004 debate with Kent Hovind at UC Irvine.
You can also read it at http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic05-10-04.html
[transcript snipped]
The best way to deal with Hovind (and your average creationist - which
is essentially what Hovind is) is to challenge him to a debate on the
Internet. He will run so fast that his tax-free panties fall down.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Ritthaler" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer/Hovind debate |
18 May 2004 10:02:54 PM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0405181814.81b14eb@posting.google.com...
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:<2guabrF6qc4qU1@uni-berlin.de>...
The following is Michael Shermer's (of Skeptic Magazine) account of his
April 29,
2004 debate with Kent Hovind at UC Irvine.
You can also read it at http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic05-10-04.html
[transcript snipped]
The best way to deal with Hovind (and your average creationist - which
is essentially what Hovind is) is to challenge him to a debate on the
Internet. He will run so fast that his tax-free panties fall down.
Budikka
Budikka, I've read and loved every page you've written about Hovind.
Can I have your autograph? ;)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer/Hovind debate |
18 May 2004 09:40:56 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 May 2004, Budikka wrote:
The best way to deal with Hovind (and your average creationist - which
is essentially what Hovind is) is to challenge him to a debate on the
Internet. He will run so fast that his tax-free panties fall down.
Is that because they lose control over the archiving and dissemination of
the text?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Klaus Hellnick" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer/Hovind debate |
18 May 2004 10:01:11 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1040518213415.1673C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Wed, 19 May 2004, Budikka wrote:
The best way to deal with Hovind (and your average creationist - which
is essentially what Hovind is) is to challenge him to a debate on the
Internet. He will run so fast that his tax-free panties fall down.
Is that because they lose control over the archiving and dissemination of
the text?
That, and the fact that every one of his rapid fire lies can be refuted in
whatever amount of detail is necessary.
Klaus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer/Hovind debate |
19 May 2004 04:21:57 AM |
|
|
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.1040518213415.1673C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...
On Wed, 19 May 2004, Budikka wrote:
The best way to deal with Hovind (and your average creationist - which
is essentially what Hovind is) is to challenge him to a debate on the
Internet. He will run so fast that his tax-free panties fall down.
Is that because they lose control over the archiving and dissemination of
the text?
There's nothing to stop them from keeping an independent record of the
debates and posting them on their own web sites.
Of course, the existence of a separate source from which people could
verify their assertions may be a problem for them.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "macaddicted" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer/Hovind debate |
18 May 2004 08:20:42 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
I then added that worldwide one billion Catholics embrace evolution, as
explained by Pope John Paul II in a 1996 encyclical entitled Truth Cannot
Contradict Truth (science and religion are both right):
"New knowledge has led to the recognition that the theory of evolution
is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has
been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of
discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither
sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted
independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the
theory."
I need to jump in here and make a few corrections. The 1996 is being
extended greatly here by Shermer, as it has been in many other places.
First, I think it is overly ambitious to say that the Church has
"embraced" evolution. It would probably be best to say that the Church
accepts scientists claims that evolution is the best explanation
available, though there are those, like Pagano, who will disagree with
this assessment. Also, like them or not, there have been some
restrictions placed on evolutionary research by Catholics, most notably
the immediate creation of the soul and monogenism.
Second, the 1996 _message_ was NOT an encyclical, IIRC JPII published no
encyclicals in 1996. An encyclical is very specific theological document
which carries with it the teaching authority of the magisterium. The
only encyclical to date on evolution has been _Humani Generis_, which
John Paul II used as a launching point for his discussion. The *address*
is best understood from within the context of its delivery to the
members of the Pontifical Academy of Science. As such it was not
intended to break new theological ground but to restate previous
Catholic teaching, as it did by quoting from two encyclicals, Humani
Generis and Providentissimus Deus. What is most notable about the
message is that the Pope indicates that the Church is more willing now
to accept evolutionary teaching then it was during the pontificate of
Pius XII, who promulgated Humani Generis in 1950.
The message should not, however, be interpreted as requiring that
Catholics assent to evolution, as would be required with an encyclical.
If another theory were to come along that was equally valid in
explaining the evidence then the Church would look at it as well. The
title of the message "Truth cannot contradict truth" comes from Leo
XII's _Providentissimus Deus_, which comments on the interaction of
science and theology, and states that scientific truth cannot contradict
revealed truth as both flow from God. I would note that evolution has
not quite risen to the level of "truth" in the eyes of the Church.
Though evolution is a generally accepted idea in science there are still
enough questions about it that evolution has not reached the point where
its ideas would require Catholicism to re-think its theology at a core
level.
I know that this is being cross posted to a couple of atheist ng's from
my home in t.o. While you may not agree with, or care about, the
positions taken by the Church, it is important that you understand how
what the Pope said fits into the theological history of the the Church
if you are going to use it in your discussions.
(cue Pagano)
--
macaddicted
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Clayton" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer/Hovind debate |
18 May 2004 12:10:12 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
(Hovind gave several commercial plugs for his Dinosaur
Adventure Land theme park that teaches children biblical-based science... your kids won?t
want to miss out on the Nerve-Wracking Ball, where a bowling ball hangs from a tree
limb and the child releases it to swing out and back just short of hitting him?he
wins the game if he doesn?t flinch, thereby demonstrating his faith in God?s laws.)
Now there's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Is Hovind really so arrogant that he believes that none of the
consequences of his actions will ever catch up to him?
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
"I wasn't aware the Tokyo police employed uneducated, paranoid,
delusional foreign delinquents."
"In my case, they made an exception."
-- MegaTokyo
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer/Hovind debate |
18 May 2004 01:28:19 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 May 2004 17:10:12 +0000 (UTC),
Richard Clayton <reZIGclaytonZIG@verizon.net> wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
(Hovind gave several commercial plugs for his Dinosaur
Adventure Land theme park that teaches children biblical-based science... your kids won?t
want to miss out on the Nerve-Wracking Ball, where a bowling ball hangs from a tree
limb and the child releases it to swing out and back just short of hitting him?he
wins the game if he doesn?t flinch, thereby demonstrating his faith in God?s laws.)
Now there's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Is Hovind really so arrogant that he believes that none of the
consequences of his actions will ever catch up to him?
He's got God on his side, of course. Barring that, he's got liars and
idiots like Road Runner and John McCoy to back him up. Any attempt to sue
him would obviously be part of the conspiracy by atheistic secularistic
communist evilushionists to shut Saint Hovind up.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pithecanthropus Erectus" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer/Hovind debate |
18 May 2004 10:47:46 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2004 17:10:12 +0000 (UTC),
Richard Clayton <reZIGclaytonZIG@verizon.net> wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
(Hovind gave several commercial plugs for his Dinosaur
Adventure Land theme park that teaches children biblical-based science... your kids won?t
want to miss out on the Nerve-Wracking Ball, where a bowling ball hangs from a tree
limb and the child releases it to swing out and back just short of hitting him?he
wins the game if he doesn?t flinch, thereby demonstrating his faith in God?s laws.)
Now there's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Is Hovind really so arrogant that he believes that none of the
consequences of his actions will ever catch up to him?
He's got God on his side, of course. Barring that, he's got liars and
idiots like Road Runner and John McCoy to back him up. Any attempt to sue
him would obviously be part of the conspiracy by atheistic secularistic
communist evilushionists to shut Saint Hovind up.
Either that or he is counting on the Rapture to get him before the
government does.
--
"The countries the most famous and the most respected of antiquity are
those which distinguished themselves by promoting and patronizing
science, and on the contrary those which neglected or discouraged it are
universally denominated rude and barbarous. The patronage which Britain
has shown to Arts, Science and Literature has given her a better
established and lasting rank in the world than she ever acquired by her
arms."
Thomas Paine
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer/Hovind debate |
18 May 2004 05:56:31 PM |
|
|
Richard Clayton <reZIGclaytonZIG@verizon.net> wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
(Hovind gave several commercial plugs for his Dinosaur Adventure Land
theme park that teaches children biblical-based science... your kids
won?t want to miss out on the Nerve-Wracking Ball, where a bowling ball
hangs from a tree limb and the child releases it to swing out and back
just short of hitting him?he wins the game if he doesn?t flinch, thereby
demonstrating his faith in God?s laws.)
Now there's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Is Hovind really so arrogant that he believes that none of the
consequences of his actions will ever catch up to him?
Didn't you know? He's exempted from the laws of the land, by God. He has
a note and everything...
--
Dr John S. Wilkins, www.wilkins.id.au
"I never meet anyone who is not perplexed what to do with their
children" --Charles Darwin to Syms Covington, February 22, 1857
.
|
|
|
| User: "macaddicted" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer/Hovind debate |
18 May 2004 06:41:34 PM |
|
|
John Wilkins <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Richard Clayton <reZIGclaytonZIG@verizon.net> wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
(Hovind gave several commercial plugs for his Dinosaur Adventure Land
theme park that teaches children biblical-based science... your kids
won?t want to miss out on the Nerve-Wracking Ball, where a bowling ball
hangs from a tree limb and the child releases it to swing out and back
just short of hitting him?he wins the game if he doesn?t flinch, thereby
demonstrating his faith in God?s laws.)
Now there's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Is Hovind really so arrogant that he believes that none of the
consequences of his actions will ever catch up to him?
Didn't you know? He's exempted from the laws of the land, by God. He has
a note and everything...
Did he find golden tablets in New York state too?
--
macaddicted
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Jeffery" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer/Hovind debate |
18 May 2004 08:42:10 PM |
|
|
"macaddicted" <macaddicted@REMOVETHIScomcast.com> wrote in message
news:1gdzqgg.1ef5s2wy5wyp0N%macaddicted@REMOVETHIScomcast.com...
John Wilkins <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Richard Clayton <reZIGclaytonZIG@verizon.net> wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
(Hovind gave several commercial plugs for his Dinosaur Adventure
Land
theme park that teaches children biblical-based science... your kids
won?t want to miss out on the Nerve-Wracking Ball, where a bowling
ball
hangs from a tree limb and the child releases it to swing out and
back
just short of hitting him?he wins the game if he doesn?t flinch,
thereby
demonstrating his faith in God?s laws.)
Now there's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Is Hovind really so arrogant that he believes that none of the
consequences of his actions will ever catch up to him?
Didn't you know? He's exempted from the laws of the land, by God. He has
a note and everything...
Did he find golden tablets in New York state too?
He doesn't need them. God (tm) speaks to him in his head. For the rest of
us that is called schizophrenia. But for him it's called deluding the
faithful.
Alan Jeffery
--
macaddicted
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.687 / Virus Database: 448 - Release Date: 16/05/2004
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer/Hovind debate |
19 May 2004 01:04:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 May 2004 22:56:31 +0000 (UTC), (John
Wilkins), Message ID: <1ge0yg8.18kkdearv4lzlN%>
wrote in alt.atheism;
Richard Clayton <reZIGclaytonZIG@verizon.net> wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
(Hovind gave several commercial plugs for his Dinosaur Adventure Land
theme park that teaches children biblical-based science... your kids
won?t want to miss out on the Nerve-Wracking Ball, where a bowling ball
hangs from a tree limb and the child releases it to swing out and back
just short of hitting him?he wins the game if he doesn?t flinch, thereby
demonstrating his faith in God?s laws.)
Now there's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Is Hovind really so arrogant that he believes that none of the
consequences of his actions will ever catch up to him?
Didn't you know? He's exempted from the laws of the land, by God. He has
a note and everything...
And he's protected by dense shrubbery......
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer/Hovind debate |
23 May 2004 01:46:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 May 2004 11:21:47 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
The following is Michael Shermer's (of Skeptic Magazine) account of his April 29,
2004 debate with Kent Hovind at UC Irvine.
You can also read it at http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic05-10-04.html
--------------------------------------------------
E-SKEPTIC #19 FOR May 10, 2004
Copyright 2004 Michael Shermer, Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, e-Skeptic
magazine (www.skeptic.com and skepticmag@aol.com). Permission to print, distribute,
and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. We encourage you to broadcast
e-Skeptic to new potential subscribers. Newcomers can subscribe to e-Skeptic for
free by sending a blank e-mail to:
www.skeptic.com; where nothing is certain...but we're not sure about that...
------------------------
Then a Miracle Occurs
An Obstreperous Evening with the Insouciant Kent Hovind,
Young Earth Creationist and Defender of the Faith
Michael Shermer
Because Hovind had said he was pro-science, I emphasized that if Young Earth
Creationists like him are right, then all of science goes out the window, not just
evolutionary biology. If the earth is only 6,000 years old, then most of cosmology,
astronomy, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, geology, paleontology, archaeology,
genetics, etc. are wrong. (Hovind gave several commercial plugs for his Dinosaur
Adventure Land theme park that teaches children biblical-based science. For example,
you can build your own Grand Canyon out of sand to see how quickly it can be done.
You can participate in Jumpasaurus, a trampoline game where you toss a ball through
a hoop and learn how you can do two things at once for Jesus. And your kids won?t
want to miss out on the Nerve-Wracking Ball, where a bowling ball hangs from a tree
limb and the child releases it to swing out and back just short of hitting him?he
wins the game if he doesn?t flinch, thereby demonstrating his faith in God?s laws.)
Faith in God, or faith in the scientific analysis which has given us
the laws of inertia and momentum and meticulously described the
properties of pendular motion?
The same type of analysis that allowed us to discover that all animals
evolve.
I think I would like to paste the following message in front of the
"swinging ball" demo in the "Dinosaur Deception Land".
---------------------------
"It is a consensus among scientists, using scientific methods, that
the ball will never return to a point higher than the point where it
was released."
"The same principles of scientific investigation that has led us to
discover so many of the physical laws of the Universe, like the one
demonstrated here, have also led to many discoveries in the world of
biology. Evolution is a primary example of these discoveries."
"If you trust what scientists tell us about the laws governing the
motion of a pendulum, and if you trust what they tell us about the
principles of aerodynamic enough to board a plane, then why reject
them when their discoveries call into question the accuracy of a book
written thousands of years ago by sheep herding nomads, who had very
little understanding of science, and practically no critical thinking
skills?"
"If you trust what science tells us about the properties of a swinging
ball as demonstrated here, then why not trust scientists at least
enough to read for yourself the scientific literature explaining the
theory of evolution? I will warn you in advance, the scientific
description of evolution is nothing like the description of evolution
promoted by creationists."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kronk" |
|
| Title: Re: Shermer/Hovind debate |
18 May 2004 07:44:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 May 2004 11:21:47 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
The following is Michael Shermer's (of Skeptic Magazine) account of his April 29,
2004 debate with Kent Hovind at UC Irvine.
You can also read it at http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic05-10-04.html
<...>
Then a Miracle Occurs
An Obstreperous Evening with the Insouciant Kent Hovind,
Young Earth Creationist and Defender of the Faith
Michael Shermer
<...>
...Finally, I suggested a number of tests of evolutionary
theory: if Hovind could produce just one example of a trilobite embedded in a fossil
bed containing hominids, I would concede that the theory of evolution is in trouble.
I'm guessing this is a reference to Hovind's Noachian Flood view, the
reasoning being that such a find would count as evidence for such a
flood, and if there was such a flood, then evolution is in trouble.
This, it seems to me, gives too much credit to the dichotomous view
Creationists promote. And while I think it unlikely Hovind will be
able to meet this challenge, I also think it concedes too much.
Does the existence of an older life form appearing in later strata
pose a problem for evolution? No.
Would it pose a problem for evolution if an early marine life form
were later found in a terrestrial setting? No.
Have there been occasions when we found life forms in the fossil
record (or still living) millions of years after we thought they had
gone extinct? Yes.
Have rocks from ancient beds ever been redeposited into newer strata?
Yes. Indeed, if I were buried under a lava flow right now, excavators
a million years from now might find my fossil remains approximately
five feet from assorted fossils of trilobites and ammonites (along
with fossils of all the other junk cluttering my house). Assuming I
count as a hominid, Shermer's challenge would be met.
I suspect he was trying to tailor his message to a largely Creationist
audience, but even so, it wouldn't have hurt to show that the logic of
our view of evolution (especially now that several sciences are
involved) is amply and independently capable of generating its own
disconfirming predictions, without need of reference to, or prodding
from, any competing model.
Kronk
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
