Creation Scientists [sic] Answer Their Critics My copies of Duane Gish's Creation Scientis
Creation Scientists [sic] Answer Their Critics
Organization: University of Arizona
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Message-ID: <14JUN199316214939@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
My copies of Duane Gish's _Creation Scientists [sic] Answer Their
Critics_ and Marvin Lubenow's _Bones of Contention_ have arrived!
(And significantly faster than the yet-to-arrive academic press
books I ordered much earlier, I might add.) I haven't had a chance
to read them yet, but here are chapter headings and some information
gleaned from skimming:
Duane T. Gish, Ph.D., _Creation Scientists [sic] Answer Their Critics_,
1993, Institute for Creation Research [sic], ISBN 0-932766-28-5.
Foreword by Henry Morris
"Thus to Gould, man is an accident, and to Asimov, God is a joke!
(One cannot avoid wondering if Asimov is still laughing.)"
Dedication
To his wife, of course.
Introduction
A one-page description of the good guys of the CRS, BSA, and ICR
fighting "a rising tide of evolutionism [sic]."
1 Creation Scientists Challenge the Dogma of Evolution
A ten-page history of creationism, _The Genesis Flood_ to present.
2 Evolutionists [sic] Mount a Counterattack
A short history of responses to creationism--the American Humanist
Association, _The American Biology Teacher_, People for the American
Way, and _Creation/Evolution_. (The first mistake jumped out at me:
Gish writes on p. 23 that "The journal, _Creation/Evolution_, was
founded by and is still edited by Fred Edwords, a philosopher who
was then president of the San Diego Humanist Society and is now an
Administrator of the American Humanist Association." _Creation/Evolution_
has been owned by the National Center for Science Education and edited
by John Cole since the end of 1991. On p. 25, Gish kindly gives
_C/E_'s address--but it's the old Amherst, NY address and not the new
Berkeley, CA address.)
3 Creation, Evolution, Science, and Religion
Addresses the questions of whether creation and/or evolution are
scientific. Gish still thinks that natural selection is tautological
and that Popper thinks that Darwinian evolution is nonfalsifiable. He
doesn't cite the _Creation/Evolution_ article which refutes the latter
claim.
4 Scientific Integrity
"The attacks by evolutionists [sic] against creation science [sic]
and creation scientists [sic], however, have been especially vicious
and slanderous.
Creation scientists [sic] have been accused of distorting science,
quoting out of context, misquoting, and outright lying. These
vicious, ad hominem attacks on creation scientists [sic] are actually
counterproductive. Many whom they seek to convince by such attacks
sense that these tactics reveal the fact the evolutionists [sic], in
doing so, are acknowledging that their scientific case is weak and
that their attacks on the personal integrity of the creation
scientists [sic] constitute a smoke screen behind which they seek
to conceal the fallacies and weaknesses in evolution theory." Gish
does appear to document some unwarranted charges made against
creationists in this chapter.
Gish replies to the "bullfrog proteins" criticism in this chapter.
(Robert Schadewald wrote a _Creation/Evolution_ article about this issue
around 1985, and Philip Kitcher used it in his 1985 Univ. of Minnesota
debate with Gish. Many people, including creationists associated with
Students for Origins Research (now the Access Research Network) tried
unsuccessfully to get Gish to respond to the charges.) Gish does not
cite Schadewald's article, but does refer to him (as "a virulent
anti-creationist," which I do not believe is an apt description for
someone on friendly terms with many creationists).
Regarding the bombardier beetle, Gish cites Weber's initial _C/E_
critique and creationist Robert Kofahl's response to Weber, but fails
to make any mention of Weber's reply to Kofahl (which appeared in the
same issue as Kofahl's article).
5 Attack and Counterattack: The Fossil Record
A lot of emphasis on the Cambrian explosion. Attacks the horse series.
Endorses Protoavis as a bird. Ends with comments on a dispute between
Gould and E.O. Wilson centering around Gould's Marxism.
6 Attack and Counterattack: The Science of Thermodynamics
Discusses John W. Patterson's criticisms and Ilya Prigogine. Has a lot
of coverage of Patterson's criticisms of Robert Boylan, his own dean
at Iowa State, for his creationism and 2nd law arguments. No mention
of Edward Max's 2nd law challenge to Gish, which Gish accepted in 1989
but hasn't come through on. (Unless he does in this chapter--I haven't
read it closely enough to tell.)
7 Kitcher Abuses Science
A reply to parts of Kitcher's book.
8 Eldredge and His Monkey Business
A reply to parts of Eldredge's book.
9 Science Confronts Evolutionists [sic]
A reply to parts of Laurie Godfrey's anthology.
10 Out of Their Own Mouths
A bunch of quotes from evolutionary scientists.
Appendix I
A pair of _Impact_ articles on thermodynamics reprinted (one by Henry
Morris, one by Gish).
Appendix II
Correspondence involving Patterson's criticisms of Boylan, and Boylan's
_Creation Research Society Quarterly_ article on thermodynamics.
I'll leave the summary of the Lubenow book to another time.
======================================================================
From: James J. Lippard
To: All Msg #121, Jun-15-93 10:16AM
Subject: Gish and polar bear adaptations
Organization: University of Arizona
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Message-ID: <15JUN199311165061@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
I've begun reading Gish's _Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics_,
and I recommend it for some of its critiques of anti-creationist
arguments and debate presentations. It looks like Gish has genuinely
found some cases of misquotation and misrepresentation by opponents
of creationism.
But this could have been a much, much better book if Gish had done a
few things differently. First, he should have carefully gone through
every issue of _Creation/Evolution_ and taken into consideration the
arguments in that journal with respect to the topics he addresses in
his book. In at least one case (the bombardier beetle), his failure
to cite Weber's reply to Kofahl even though he cites Kofahl looks like
a sin of omission. Second, he should have made sure his information was
up-to-date. Apparently he was circulating drafts of chapters back in
1989, but he never bothered to update them with more recent information,
such as the change of address, ownership, and editorship of
_Creation/Evolution_. (He also, as a result, mistakenly says that
John Cole is an associate professor of anthropology at the University
of North Iowa, a position Cole hasn't held for nearly a decade. (He
left that position to be the executive director of CSICOP, then to work
for the AHA, and then to the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where
he is now.) Third, Gish completely ignores the most exhaustive critique
of creationism, Arthur N. Strahler's _Science and Earth History_ (1987,
Prometheus Books). He should have addressed it. Fourth, he should have
refrained from ad hominem, especially since he rails against its use
by opponents of creationism. I've barely begun reading the book and I've
already lost count of the number of "virulent anti-creationists" and
"bitter opponents of creationism" he's labeled. Finally, Gish periodically
makes some of the same old, terrible arguments that he is so well-known for.
Here is an example, from pp. 54-55:
The white coat color of the polar bear cannot be adaptive, however,
since he has no predator. The white coat color thus cannot provide
him any selective value, since failure to detect him against the
snowy terrain cannot protect him against a non-existent predator.
I suspect a third-grader could spot the error in this reasoning.
Jim Lippard Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
===================================================================
Dan Ford, who can read but can't post to talk.origins, sent me this, which
he has given me permission to post:
Date: 16 Jun 1993 09:38:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Ford
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank