Ken:

I sat down today to pen a quick reply to my critics on your web forum, and
ended up writing a 3700 word article about the Hovind debate! It was great
fun. I'll be posting it to e-Skeptic and publishing it in Skeptic. But in the
meantime, if you'd like to post it to the forum where the guys who went said I
got my ***** kicked by Hovind, I'd be happy to divest them of that opinion with
this article. Attached in a word document and pasted in below.

Michael


Then a Miracle Occurs
Thanks to Ken Bonnell for alerting me to this critical internet thread on
my debate with Kent Hovind, and especially for motivating me to write this
piece. I was not going to write anything on the debate, because I have already
written so much on creationism, including my debate with Duane T. Gish, but
when I saw that someone said I got my ***** kicked, well, them's fighting words.
I'm a very competitive person and one kicks my ***** without a fight! So, here
you go, my version of the ***** whooping I gave Kent Hovind
--Michael Shermer

An Obstreperous Evening with the Insouciant Kent Hovind, Young Earth
Creationist and Defender of the Faith

Michael Shermer

At 7:00 pm on a warm and clear 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, even before the dialogue
heated up. Hovind's people were in force, handing out literature: "The Flood
of Noah: Ridiculous Myth or Scientifically Accurate?" (I'll take door number
one, Monty.) "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?" "Ph.D.'s Who Are Creationists." (See the
National Center for Science Education's list of "Steves" who accept
evolution.) 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.

I agreed to participate in the debate at the last minute, after the
originally-planned 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 because such an adversarial system more closely models the
law, not science, 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 was also alerted to the fact that Hovind was currently 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 (on that point he may be on to
something!), 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"
(www.answersingenesis.org). I inquired of Pastor Jason if he was aware of these charges,
which he acknowledged 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
(or 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.

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
I have 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.

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, 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 and considered what
other explanations might 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 explanations 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, 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 with which 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 right. 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?"- and that skepticism and science are verbs,
not nouns; 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 continuum diagram
(available at http://www.ncseweb.org/graphics/Continu.jpg and 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 my
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 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." I drove home the point, again and again throughout the
evening, 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, that 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. (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. Here is what he said: "I am
here to win you over to Christ. 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). 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 6000 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. Finally, I suggested a number of tests of
evolutionary theory: if Hovind could produce just one example of a trilobite
embedded in a mammalian fossil bed, 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 an undertone, a substrate question: "this couldn't happen to
me, could it?" Why yes, as a matter of fact, it could. One convenient dodge
around this unpleasant line of inquiry imputes upon me a false faith: "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? At the end of the evening, Hovind once again conceded
defeat. He was asked in the Q & A: "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: "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.