How Creationists Debate

- 1 May 1988

On Sunday, 24 May, there was broadcast on the Commercial programmes a debate on Evolution-Creationism. The host was George Balani and our member, Gordon Hewitt, spoke for evolution and Dr Arthur Wilder-Smith defended creationism. This debate provided the perfect example of creationist technique in action. How do creationists do it?

You hog all the talk. Wilder-Smith must have said at least three times as many words as Gordon. This is all right because you have the truth on your side and anyone put up against you is an ignorant ignoramus who you can rightly treat patronisingly.
You refuse to answer the questions put to you and say what you have planned to from the start. George Balani must have asked Wilder-Smith to explain the arguments for creationism at least four times. This he refused to do. Instead, he insisted on presenting evidence against evolution. This is all right because there are only two possible views; creationism, the truth, and evolution the cause of all the evil in the world today. So, provided you can knock down evolution, creationism must win. After all, it is very easy to find some argument against any theory and impossible to present any evidence for creationism so keep off it. [Editors note: I have a theory that the universe was created by a group of evil trolls who now live in a cave under Cheyenne Mountain in Wyoming, I’d like to hear a creationist knock that one down] By contrast, Gordon made three excellent points, outlining the case for evolution, in simple, comprehensive terms. Wilder-Smith sensibly ignored them.

Later on, the subject of the age of the earth was raised. Wilder-Smith stated that he believed in a young earth but refused, under persistent questioning, to say exactly how old. Nor would he say why he could not be precise. Presumably, Wilder-Smith believes the earth to be 20,000 years old (or some such) whereas most creationists plump for 10,000 years. He would not want to disagree with the rest of the brethren.

Obfuscate the issue. Find a topic about which your opponent has no specialist knowledge and which you know something or can claim to do so. In this case, Wilder-

Smith claimed to be an expert on Information Theory and let everyone know it. As far as could be made out (and

Balani repeatedly kept asking for clarification) the argument was that as amino acids can come in two isomeric forms (Left handed and Right handed) and because in nature almost all amino acids are left handed there must have been some external purposeful machine supplying the information. Wilder-Smith spoke so often that there was no opportunity for Gordon to suggest that the choice may have been made only once in the distant past and all subsequent amino acids are descended from that original. In fact, this is an excellent argument for evolution. When, as many experts think will happen in ten or twenty years, it becomes possible to make self replicating cells in the test tube, Wilder-Smith’s argument (as far as it is comprehensible) will collapse.

Parade your qualifications. Let everyone know how clever you are, tell them all the big names you have worked with and in what prestigious labs you have studied (none of them having the remotest connection with creationism or the Institute for Creation Research, of course). By contrast, Gordon had no need for such antics, he does not have to reassure himself of his own worth.
Raise points long since decided. The discussion got on to Noah’s Ark so Wilder-Smith brought up the hoary old one about the animals suffering from hypothermia. He said they hibernated (I wish Gordon had been given the chance to answer that one). Of course lions do not hibernate, any mammals that do must have peace and quiet and would not do so in the tempest-tossed boat. In any case the Bible is quite clear on this point, whether it was eaten or not, all the animals went on board with their food. So fourteen lions, eating on average one zebra a week would need 700 zebras for the years trip. Zebras need 10 kg of grass and 1 litre of water a day so that means 1260 tonnes of grass and 120 tonnes of water to feed the zebras, (unless of course they hibernated). Then there were 14 tiger and 14 cheetah and 14…

In conclusion it may be said that the debate was the epitome of creationist debating methods in action. The only tactic not displayed was that of misquoting and quoting out of context. Perhaps that is being kept in reserve in case there is a return match. Gordon is to be congratulated on putting up such a coherent defence of evolution in the face of so much provocation and prevarication.