Authors: Robert Zuber (zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu), Chris Colby (colby@bu-bio.bu.edu), An
======================================================================
Authors: Robert Zuber (zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu),
Chris Colby (colby@bu-bio.bu.edu),
Andy Peters (adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu),
Chris Stassen (stassen@alc.com)
Title: Various Examples of Verifiable Creationist Dishonesty
======================================================================
By Rob Zuber:
ortmann@plains.NoDak.edu (Daniel Ortmann) writes:
>"do it right" be sure you have evidence. We are talking of high caliber
>scientists, who happen to be Christians and creationists. These people
>(also myself) have great moral accountability to be honest and
>*guileless*. Any Christian who tries to falsify evidence has to face
>God. Even when no one else is looking, God is.
Incredible! As you said, 'Any Christian who tries to falsify
evidence has to face God'. Will you accept the following as 'falsifying
evidence'?
-----------
I'm quoting a second-hand source, so flame me if you will. I
will, however, at least list the primary sources so you can check
yourself. The point here is about creationist misquoting, nothing else.
The following is from source [1] (the second-hand one).
=======================
QUESTION: According to creationists, there are plenty of places
where the fossils are in the wrong order for evolution. This must mean
geologists have to assume evolution so as to arrange the geological time
scale so as to date the fossils so as to erect an evolutionary sequence
so as to prove evolution, thereby reasoning in a vicious circle. When
the fossils are in the wrong order, geologists apparently assume the
"older" rocks were shoved on top of the younger ones (thrust faulting),
or else that the strata were overturned (recumbent folds), even though
there is no physical evidence for these processes. In particular,
Whitcomb and Morris [2] maintain the physical evidence proves the Lewis
Overthrust and Heart Mountain Overthrust never slid an inch. How do you
reply?
ANSWER: Whitcomb and Morris, again, quote their sources badly
out of context. There is plenty of physical evidence having nothing to
do with fossils or evolution that show thrust faulting to be very real.
Let us consider the Lewis Overthrust and Heart Mountain Overthrust [I've
deleted the Heart Mountain bit] in some detail.
The Lewis Overthrust of Glacier National Park, Montana, consists
of the deformed Precambrian limestones of the Belt Formation that were
shoved along a horizontal thrust fault on top of much younger (but
viciously crumpled) Cretaceous shales. ...[deletion]... Ross and Rezak
[3] wrote in their article about the Lewis Overthrust that the rocks
along the thrust fault are badly crumpled, but Whitcomb and Morris (p.
187) lift the following words from this article:
"Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the
impression that the Belt strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat
today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many
million years ago."
But if we read the rest of Ross's and Rezak's paragraph, we find that
Whitcomb and Morris quoted it out of context:
".... so many million years ago. Actually, they are folded, and
in certain places, they are intensely so. From the points on and near
the trails in the park, it is possible to observe places where the Belt
series, as revealed in outcrops on ridges, cliffs, and canyon walls, are
folded and crumpled almost as intricately as the soft younger strata in
the mountains south of the park and in the Great Plains adjoining the
park to the east."
Ross and Rezak repeatedly show how "crushed and crumpled" the rocks in
the thrust fault are:
"The intricate crumpling and crushing in the immediate vicinity
of the main overthrust, visible in localities like that near Marias
Pass, shown in figure 139, must have taken place when the heavy
overthrust slab was forced over the soft rocks beneath......"
[Two more quotations deleted]
============================
Now it certainly *appears* that Whitcomb and Morris have
*completely* misrepresented the Ross and Rezak paper. It seems they
quoted to the effect that there was *no* evidence of overthrusting, even
though that paper appears to forcefully say the *exact* opposite! Now
it's fine if creationists want to disagree with certain conclusions if
they can back it up with evidence, but why in hell quote from a paper
that completely contradicts your view?
[1] Weber, Christopher Gregory "Common Creationist Attacks on Geology".
_Creation/Evolution_, Issue II, Fall 1980, pp. 21-22.
[2] Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris. _Genesis Flood_.
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.: Philadelphia, PA, 1961.
[3] Ross, C. P., and Richard Rezak. "The Rocks and Fossils of Glacier
National Monument". _U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper_ 294-K
(1959).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rob Zuber:
ortmann@plains.NoDak.edu (Daniel Ortmann) writes:
>"do it right" be sure you have evidence. We are talking of high caliber
>scientists, who happen to be Christians and creationists. These people
>(also myself) have great moral accountability to be honest and
>*guileless*. Any Christian who tries to falsify evidence has to face
>God. Even when no one else is looking, God is.
Perhpaps Daniel Ortmann can comment on the folowing. It's a bit
dated (1986), so maybe Mr. Ortmann can call Gish himself.
The following is from the _Creation/Evolution_ journal, Issue XVII (Vol.
6, No. 1) pp. 1-5
================
"Scientific Creationism and Error" by Robert Schadewald (1986)
[deletions]
Ironically, creationists make much of scientific errors. The
"Nebraska Man" fiasco, where the tooth of an extinct peccary was
misidentified as belonging to a primitive human, is ubiquitous in
creationist literature and debate presentations. So is the "Piltdown
Man" hoax. Indeed, creationist propagandists often present these two
scientific errors as characteristic of paleoanthropology. It is
significant that these errors were uncovered and corrected from within
the scientific community. In contrast, creationists rarely expose their
own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose
them.
GISH'S PROTEINS
Duane Gish, a protein biochemist with a Ph.D. from Berkeley, is
vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and
creationism's most well-known spokesperson. A veteran of perhaps 150
public debates and thousands of lectures and sermons on creationism,
Gish is revered among creationists as a great scientist and a tireless
fighter for the truth. Among noncreationists, however, Gish has a
reputation for making erroneous statements and then pugnaciously
refusing to acknowledge them. One example is an unfinished epic which
might be called the tale of two proteins.
In July 1983, the Public Broadcasting System televised an
hour-long program on creationism. One of the scientists interviewed,
biochemist Russell Doolittle, discussed the similarities between human
proteins and chimpanzee proteins. In many cases, corresponding human and
chimpanzee proteins are identical, and, in others, they differ by only a
few amino acids. This strongly suggests a common ancestry for humans and
apes. Gish was asked to comment. He replied:
"If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be
assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other
things. But on the other hand, if you look at certain other proteins,
you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullforg than he is to
a chimapanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll
find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a
chimpanzee."
I had never heard of such proteins, so I asked a few
biochemists. They hadn't either. I wrote to Gish for supporting
documentation. He ignored my first letter. In reply to my second, he
referred me to Berkeley geochronologist Garniss Curtis. I wrote to
Curtis, who replied immediately.
Some years ago, Curtis attended a conference in Austria where he
heard that someone had found bullfrog blood proteins very similar to
human blood proteins. Curtis offered an explanatory hypothesis: the
"frog" which yielded the proteins was, he suggested, an enchanted
prince. He then predicted that the research would never be confirmed. He
was apparently correct, for nothing has been heard of the proteins
since. But Duane Gish once heard Curtis tell his little story.
This bullfrog "documentation" (as Gish now calls it) struck me
as a joke, even by creationist standards, and Gish simply ignored his
alleged chicken proteins. In contrast, Doolittle backed his televised
claims with published protein sequence data. I wrote to Gish again
suggesting that he should be able to do the same. He didn't reply.
Indeed, he has never since replied to any of my letters.
John W. Patterson and I attended the 1983 National Creation
Conference in Roseville, Minnesota. We had several conversations there
with Kevin Wirth, research director of Students for Origins Research
(SOR). At some point, we told him the protein story and suggested that
Gish might have lied on national television. Wirth was confident that
Gish could document his claims. He told us that, if we put our charges
in the form of a letter, he would do his best to get it published in
_Origins Research_, the SOR tabloid.
Gish also attended the conference, and I asked him about the
proteins in the presence of several creationists. Gish tried mightily to
evade and to obfuscate, but I was firm. Doolittle provided sequence data
for human and chimpanzee proteins; Gish could do the same - *if* his
alleged chicken and bullfrog proteins really exist. Gish insisted that
they exist and promised to send me the sequences. Skeptically, I asked
him pointblank: "Will that be before hell freezes over?" He assured me
that it would. After two-and- one-half years, I still have neither
sequence data nor a report of frost in Hades.
Shortly after the conference, Patterson and I submitted a joint
letter to _Origins Research_, briefly recounting the protein story and
concluding, "We think Gish lied on national television." We sent Gish a
copy of the letter in the same mail. During the next few months, Wirth
(and probably others at SOR) practically begged Gish to submit a reply
for publication. According to Wirth, someone at ICR, perhaps Gish
himself, responded by pressuring SOR not to publish our letter. Unlike
Gish, however, Kevin Wirth was as good as his word. The letter appeared
in the spring 1984 issue of _Origins Research_ -- with no reply from
Gish.
The 1984 National Bible-Science Conference was held in
Cleveland, and again Patterson and I attended. Again, I asked Gish for
sequence data for his chicken and bullfrog proteins. This time, Gish
told me that any further documentation for his proteins is up to Garniss
Curtis and me.
I next saw Gish on February, 18, 1985, when he debated
philosopher of science Philip Kitcher at the University of Minnesota.
Several days earlier, I had heralded Gish's coming (and his mythical
proteins) in a guest editorial in the student newspaper, _The Minnesota
Daily_. Kitcher alluded to the proteins early in the debate, and, in his
final remarks, he demanded that Gish either produce references or admit
that they do not exist. Gish, of course, did neither. His closing
remarks were punctuated with sporadic cries of "Bullfrog!" from the
audience.
That evening, Duane Gish addressed about two hundred people
assembled in a hall at the student union. During the question period,
Stan Weinberg, a founder of the Committees of Correspondence on
Evolution, stood up. Scientists sometimes make mistakes, said Weinberg,
and, when they do, they own up to them. Had Gish ever made a mistake in
his writings and presentations? If so, could his chicken and bullfrog
proteins have been a mistake? Gish made a remarkable reply.
He has, indeed, made mistakes.....
[example deleted]
Regarding the bullfrog proteins, Gish said that he relied on
Garniss Curtis for them. Perhaps Curtis was wrong. As for the chicken
proteins, Gish made a convoluted and (to a nonbiochemist) confusing
argument about chicken lysozyme. It was essentially the same answer he
had given me immediately after his debate with Kitcher, when I went
onstage and asked him once again for references. It was also the same
answer he gave two nights later......
[bombardier beetle stuff deleted]
About the chicken lysozyme: three times in three days Gish was
challenged to produce references for chicken proteins closer to human
proteins than the corresponding chimpanzee proteins. Three times he
responded with an argument which essentially reduces to this: if human
lysozyme and lactalbumin evolved from the same precursor, as scientists
claim, then human lysozyme should be closer to human lactalbumin than to
chicken lysozyme, but it is not.
Well, although it is true that human lysozyme is *not* closer to
human lactalbumin than to chicken lysozyme, this comes as no shock and
does not make a case for creationism. Furthermore, it doesn't at all
address the issue that we raised. We were talking about Gish's earlier
comparison of human, chimp, and chicken proteins, and Gish changed the
subject and started comparing human lysozyme to human lactalbulmin!
Few of his creationist listeners know what lysozyme is, and
perhaps none of them knew that human and chimpanzee lysozyme are
identical and that chicken lysozyme differs from both by fifty-one out
of the 130 amino acids [1]. To one unfamiliar with biochemistry and,
especially, Gish's apologetic method's, it *sounded* like he responded
to the question. Whether by design or by some random process, Gish's
chicken lysozyme apologetic was admirably suited to deceive listeners.
One who was taken in by it was Crockett Grabbe, a physicist with
the University of Iowa. As a result, Grabbe wrongly accused Gish of
claiming that chicken lysozyme is closer to human lysozyme than is
chimpanzee lysozyme. Gish then counterattacked, playing "blame the
victim" and pretending it was Grabbe's own fault that he was deceived
[2]. But if the chicken lysozyme apologetic fooled a professional
scientist, it is unlikely that many of the creationist listeners saw
through it.
Gish's refusal to acknowledge the nonexistence of his chicken
protein is characteristic of ICR. Gish's boss, Henry Morris, gave Gish's
handling of the matter his tacit approval by what he said (and didn't
say) about it in his _History of Modern Creationism_. Morris refferred
to the protein incident and took a swipe at Russell Doolittle (whom he
identified as "Richard Doolittle"), but he offered no criticism of
Gish's conduct. Instead, he accused PBS of misrepresenting Gish [3]!
Meanwhile, Gish had been obfuscating behind the scenes. The only
creationist publication to directly address the protein affair has been
_Origins Research_, which first covered the matter in its spring 1984
issue. Then, in the fall 1985 issue, editor Dennis Wagner revisited the
controversy. However, in his article, he (1) wrongly identified Glyn
Isaac as the source of Gish's bullfrog and (2) wrongly stated that Gish
had sent me a tape of the lecture in which Isaac supposedly made the
satement. Wagner's source, it turns out, is a February 27, 1984, letter
Gish wrote to Kevin Wirth, in which Gish apparently confused the late
Glyn Isaac (an archaeologist and authority on early stone tools) with
Garniss Curtis. He also claimed to have a tape and a transcript of the
'Isaac' (presumably Curtis) lecture, and he claimed that he had reviewed
them. In the same paragraph, Gish claimed that he had sent me his
'documentation,' and Wagner quite naturally assumed that that meant at
least the tape. But Gish sent me neither, nor has he sent copies of said
tape or transcript to others who have requested them. As with his
chicken proteins, we have only Gish's word for their existence.
For the record, it is no longer important whether Gish's
original statements about chicken and bullfrog proteins were deceptions
or incredible blunders. It is now going on four years since the PBS
broadcast, and Gish has neither retracted his chicken statement nor
attempted to justify it. (Obviously, the lysozyme apologetic doesn't
count, but it took Gish two-and- one-half years to come up with that!)
And if the Curtis story is all he knows about his chimpanzee protein, on
what basis did he promise to send me its sequence at the 1983 National
Bible-Science Conference? Gish has woven himself into an incredible web
of contradictions, and even some creationists now suspect that he has
been less than candid.
[rest of article deleted]
=================================
[1] Awbrey, Frank T., and Thwaites, William M. Winter 1982. "A Closer
Look at Some Biochemical Data That 'Support' Creation,"
_Creation/Evolution_, issue VII, p. 15.
[2] Gish, Duane T. August 14, 1985. "Creationism Misassailed." _Cedar
Rapids Gazette_.
[3] Morris, Henry M. 1984. _History of Modern Creationism_ (San Diego:
Master Book Publishers), p. 316.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rob Zuber:
ortmann@plains.NoDak.edu (Daniel Ortmann) writes:
>E has problems with fossilized forests that were fossilized vertically
>*with* leaves still intact. E has no alternative but to invoke a
>"catastrophe", but does so on a "local" scale. He dare not consider
As this is rather vague, I can only guess at what this is about.
You may want to check Strahler's "Science and Earth History" (page 221-)
for further details.
From [1]: (I've also listed the references mentioned in [1])
"QUESTION: Creationists like Dr. N. A. Rupke, a geologist of the
State University of Groningen in the Netherlands, claim that certain
fossil trees (which they call 'polystrate fossils') extend vertically
through many meters of strata. Rupke says they are found in such
coal-producing areas as the Ruhr region of Germany, Lancashire in
England, and Joggins in Nova Scotia. How do you reply?
ANSWER: The creationists again mishandle their sources. The
evidence shows that the vertical trees were really buried by flooding
rivers.
For instance, _Scientific Creationism_ [2] quotes F. M.
Broadhurst [3] as saying:
"It is clear that trees in position of growth are far
from being rare in Lancashire (Teichmuller, 1956 reaches
the same conclusion for similar trees in the Rhein-Westfalen
Coal Measures), and presumably in all such cases there
must have been a rapid rate of sedimentation."
However, Broadhurst has some evidence that river floods buried these
trees, evidence that the creationists do not mention. He continues:
"... there must have been a rapid rate of sedimentation. This
sedimentation occurred, without doubt, in water that could
not have been fast-flowing, since the trees were left in a
standing position. It is possible that the land surface with
its trees was inundated by flood water (possibly on numerous
occasions) from adjacent waterways, the flood water bringing
with it large amounts of sediment."
He goes on to say that fossil polystrate trees are found only in the
coarse- grained rocks, but not in the fine-grained ones. The reason is
that the sediments of the latter probably did not settle fast enough to
bury the trees before they rotted away:
"The most likely explanation of the apparent absence of
such trees from these sediments is that the latter
accumulated too slowly; any trees decayed and collapsed
before they could be enclosed by sediments."
Hence the river flood theory can explain why the trees are found upright
and why trees were preserved in some rocks but not others; the
creationist catastrophe theory cannot.
===================================
[1] Weber, Christopher Gregory "Common Creationist Attacks on Geology"
Creation/Evolution II, p. 14.
[2] "Scientifc Creationism." ed. by Henry M. Morris. General ed.
Creation- Life Publishers: San Diego, CA, 1974, p. 108
[3] Broadhurst, F. M. "Some Aspects of the Palaeoecology of Non-Marine
Faunas and Rates of Sedimentation in the Lancashire Coal Measures".
American Journal of Science, Vol. 262 (Summer, 1964), pp. 858-869.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chris Colby:
ortmann@plains.NoDak.edu (Daniel Ortmann) writes:
>We are talking of high caliber
>scientists, who happen to be Christians and creationists. These people
>(also myself) have great moral accountability to be honest and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>*guileless*.
See the paragraph below (it is from an article I wrote a while
ago). Also, I'll be waiting to see your "great moral accountability"
regarding evidence for the intellectual dishonesty of evolutionists. I
don't view slandering hard-working, honest scientists without any
evidence to back up your point as honest or guileless.
>Any Christian who tries to falsify evidence has to face
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>God. Even when no one else is looking, God is.
A recent issue of the journal _Evolution_ (1) has a book
review of Berra's book, "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism."
It also contains some examples of recent creationist rhetoric,
including this accusation. John Morris (2) asserts that issues of
Evolution "frequently feature articles which describe how
modern society should be shaped." These articles, according
to Morris, encourage killing "older or weaker members unable
to contribute to the good of the larger group."
This is an outright lie by an ICR member. Would you
consider this falsifying evidence?
REFERENCES:
(1) Shapiro, 1991, A myth is as good as a mile, Evolution 45: 1061 -
1062
(2) Morris, 1990, Why do we marry? Back to Genesis #20, ICR, El Cajon,
C.A. (quotes taken from Shapiro's article, not the original tract)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By Andy Peters:
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>I've tried to track down references by Gish, as I think it is possibly
>more concrete to critique his actual writings than second hand oral
>accounts of his talks.
>
>This is what I came up with:
[A listing of books 1-4]
>[5] "Dinosaurs: those terrible lizards," Master Books, 1977
This is the one that scares me the most. It's a children's book! Why does
it scare me? Because Gish uses the same bullshit tactics to preach to
little kids as he does with adults. Here's what the blurb on the back
of the book says:
"No one living in the world today has ever seen a real live
dinosaur - but did people in earlier times live with dinosaurs?
Were dragons of ancient legends really dinosaurs? Does the
Bible speak about dinosaurs? The answers are in this book!"
Gish first gives a brief overview of very basic facts about dinosaurs &
dinosaur fossils: definition of "dinosaur," global distribution of fossils.
Then he has a section called "Where did dinosaurs come from?" He gives one
paragraph "explaining" evolution. His "definition" of evolution stresses
"in-between forms," and the dates "about 200 million years ago" and "about
70 million years ago." Then he spends four paragraphs on creation: one
paragraph on a definition, and three on biblical grounds for creation.
His next section begins, "Is there scientific evidence that Man and dinosaurs
lived at the same time?" He stresses that if they did we would be very
unlikely to see actual fossils of them together, because of patchy
fossilization. Then comes (you'll never guess) - the Paluxy River footprints.
He ends this section with, "Are there human footprints and dinosaur footprints
together in Paluxy River bottom? . . . We will not be able to say absolutely
sure one way or the other until more work is done." In addition to all of
this, the illustration on this page is of a human walking next to a dinosaur,
both leaving footprints. Scary, huh? (By the way, the latest version of this
was published in '88, and it's still on sale today - you've gotta love guys
who lie to kids)
Next comes the biblical evidence for the coexistence of man with dinosaurs -
description of the "behemoth" (Job 40: 15-24)
Then Gish gives descriptions of various kinds of dinosaurs, interspersing them
with quotes like, "If this strange creature [_Triceratops_] slowly evolved,
as evolutionists believe, then we aught to be able to find transitional forms
. . . but none are found!", and lots of talk about the "purposes" of various
structures (i.e. _Stegosaurus'_ plates). My favorite quote from this section
is, "[again, about _Stegosaurus] Not a single such in-between form can be
found! . . . This is good evidence that these creatures did not evolve but
were created by God." (p. 25) (The old "if evolution isn't true, our version
of creation must be" argument - this time being used against children!)
Eventually Gish gives up all appearances of impartiality in this section,
saying things like "No in-between forms! That's because God created them."
(p. 27)
The next section is called "Ancestors for Birds?" and says such things as
"The bird type hip suddenly appears in certain kinds of dinosaurs, with
no in-between forms showing where the bird-hip came from. That's because
God created them!" (p. 49)
The next section is five pages entitled "Dragons and Bombardier Beetles."
Of course, this section focuses on how the Bombardier beetle ("Mr. B. B.")
couldn't have evolved his defense mechanism: "Could evolution make all
of that happen by a zillion accidents? No way!" (p. 55) Of course, no
reference to the fact that this argument has been shown to be a bunch of
hooey.
The last section is "Whatever Became of the Dinosaurs?" Gish's answer?
Weather changes caused them to go extinct. I think we all know what his
mechanism for the weather changes is (Hint: Starts with an F, ends with a
D, and has LOO (as in toilet) in the middle).
DISCLAIMER: Unlike Derek (who actually did a good job of being unbiased), I
didn't separate my comments from my summary. However, the summary parts
are as unbiased as I could make them. In addition, I'd like to assure
everyone that all the ellipses [. . .] in the above quotations _do not_
remove anything from the meaning of the quotes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chris Stassen:
Chuck Maier writes:
[A lot about a number of Bible verses and how they support his reading
of Genesis. I'm just going to pick one example to make a more general
point about how Chuck is reading Scripture:]
>
> Recall we're discussing whether the N.T. writers believed in the
> historicity of Genesis. vs. 39 reads "All flesh is not the same;
> one KIND is human; another KIND is animal, another is fowl,
> another is fish."
>
> This clearly a reference to the separately created kinds, as in
> Genesis.
I think Chuck is stretching here, badly. This verse is far from being
in alignment with his beliefs. I was thinking about posting it myself,
and was shocked to see a creationist produce it. My translation says
that each is of "one flesh."
The clear meaning, under Chuck's assumption that it is a reference
to "created kinds," is that there is only *one* "kind" each of fish,
animal, and bird. I don't know of many "creationists" who would
accept that, except maybe the old-earth variety.
> Is it any wonder any wonder that ardent evolutionists want to keep our
> schoolchildren in the dark about the facts, scientific and biblical.
I rarely stoop to responding to stuff like this, but I will make an
exception for Chuck, who usually sounds more reasonable than this.
Regarding theology, I am sure that the geocentrists could give us some
Biblical "facts" to oppose heliocentric astronomy. Would you vote
for their inclusion in a science class?
Regarding science, here is an exercise for anyone who wants to (as
Chuck apparently does) claim that creationists have any interest in
giving honest information to people:
Call the ICR's publishing house (Master Books) at 619-448-1121. Order
catalog item "CRESAM," a sampler of creationism pamphlets, for $2.95
(plus $3 s/h). Read "Have You Been Brainwashed?" -- you will receive
four copies, so you can get three friends to participate and split the
costs.
In it, you will note claims of human and dinosaur footprints
together at the Paluxy River site. Also, note claims that the precambrian
is void of fossils. (See below for evidence that Gish, the author of
the pamphlet and very influential in the ICR, knew the latter claim to
be false as of 1985.)
Call a noted scientific publisher, say, Sinauer or W.H. Freeman. See
if you can find a book that uses piltdown or nebraska man to build a
case for human evolution. You will fail.
Now, tell me: based on the results of your exercise, which side cares
about presenting "facts"? Which side is diligent about refusing to
propagate misproven or misleading "information"? Why do you think
this is so?
=======================================================================
Below is a written transcript that I made from a videotape of the
Gish/Plimer debate in 1988. Plimer obtained a copy of the same
pamphlet, and hammered Gish for the inaccuracies in it.
=======================================================================
These are from the video tape of the March 18, 1988 debate between Ian
Plimer and Duane Gish. The debate took place in Australia; the video
tape has been converted to American TV format and my own copy is an
unknown-number-of-times removed from the original and is of mediocre
quality (especially the sound).
When I am not sure of a word, it appears with a question mark
following. Editorial remarks are in [square brackets]. All punctuation
is my own invention, which I use in an attempt to convey the flow of
the talk.
Note that Plimer, in my opinion, was overly aggressive and mean-spirited
in this debate. I don't think that he conducted himself well during
much of the debate. However, in my opinion he thrashed Gish mainly due
to the same pamphlet which is discussed above.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Plimer's statement during his 45-minute debate speech:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What I want to now talk about are some of our scientific publications
which come from our (?) creationists. The creationists will not allow
refutations by scientists. They will not allow a process of improving
or correcting. I use the same principle.
[I am not sure what Plimer means by "[using] the same principle."
Either he is saying that *he* won't allow a "process of improving
or correcting" either, or he is saying that he is using the same
principle of investigating creationist claims as he had been using
earlier in his talk.]
And I use our friend's book, or booklet -- it's more like a comic --
which is called "Are You Being Brainwashed?" [Plimer gets the title wrong,
I think] I go to page 8. There is a diagram there that says, "precambrian:
void of fossils." That is a lie. The precambrian is not void of fossils;
the precambrian is extremely rich in fossils. He [Gish] has come to the
country where there are many precambrian fossils going back to 3 thousand
3 hundred million years ago.
On the same diagram, he says the "earth's crust" is "void of fossils."
That is a lie. Every fossil found on this planet is from the earth's
crust. That is from his book, "Are You Being Brainwashed?" page 8.
We also see on the same page, the Cambrian; a geological time period
some time ago. And I quote, "The billions of fossils found are all of
highly complex forms of life." That is a lie. There on one simple
diagram we have three lies. That is their scientific publication.
[The diagram appears to be unchanged in the current copy.]
We turn now to page 9. And we read, "not a single indisputable
multicellular fossil has been found anywhere in the world in a rock
supposedly older than Cambrian rocks." That is a lie. But what (?)
we see is a repetition of these lies, all the time. "You don't find
fossils in old rocks; you don't find fossils in old rocks; you don't
find fossils in old rocks." And eventually someone believes them.
So we've read two or three (?) pages and we've got ourselves four
lies. And we have an interesting situation here.
[Plimer digresses for a while about Australian creationist Andrew
Snelling who claimed that precambrian rocks are rich in fossils.
I omit that section because it is not relevant to the pamphlet,
other than in showing that some creationists contradict Gish.]
And continuing with page 9, "billions of highly complex animals...
just suddenly appear, with no signs of gradual development from lower
forms." That is a lie. So we now have 55 words and 5 lies. One lie
every 11 words in his publication.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gish's response during his 10-minute rebuttal period
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now, furthermore, Dr. Plimer quoted from my book, or little "Brainwashed"
booklet, written 17 years ago. It's a little, ah, book, you might call
it a comic-style book, it's not written in comic terms at all, but it was
written 17 years ago.
And at that time, according to Dr. Preston Cloud, one of the world's
leading evolutionary geologists, there were no undoubted precambrian
fossils. [crowd noise] That's what he said. [More crowd noise]
And I quoted, many years ago, Dr. Cloud to that effect. Because he said,
first of all, you would not know, you could not establish whether these
rocks were precambrian or cambrian... some of these rocks [oops! -CS].
And furthermore there were many pseudo-fossils that had been discovered.
Now, since that time, as I described in my debate, there are many published
reports of micro-fossils in precambrian rocks. And furthermore, the
Ediacaran which I did describe in my talk, is supposed to be precambrian.
I discussed all of them in my book, "Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil
Record," which was published two years ago.
[Note here that Gish is saying that he *knows* now that there are
precambrian fossils, and that he has known it for at least a couple
of years.]
Why didn't Dr. Plimer consult this book? [crowd noise] Why didn't he see
what I had written that is up to date? To accuse me of lying is terribly,
terribly wrong. I stated the facts as I knew them then, as Preston Cloud
and others have stated. In this edition [waving book], 1985, 15 years
later, I have published what I described in my lecture. Dr. Plimer
completely ignored what I said in my lecture, and what I said in my book,
to try to accuse me of lying.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Plimer's response during his 10(?)-minute rebuttal period
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[crowd noise] This little book seems to have caused a little trouble
with our friend. It was written 17 years ago and he refuted it. Why
is it I could buy it outside, 20 minutes ago? [crowd noise]
[And the ICR is *still* selling it without correction or disclaimer.
Gish got hammered for distributing the pamphlet in 1988. He admitted
that he knew no later than 1985 that some of the claims in it were
false. WHY IS THE ICR STILL SELLING IT?]
ADDENDUM:
The following letter was received by Wesley Elsberry:
>Date: Mon Mar 07 1994 09:24:08
>From: Larry Sites
>To: Wesley R. Elsberry
>
>This is, I believe, the file that includes the Gish-Pilmer debate about the
>lack of truthfullness in Gish's "Brainwashed" comic book. If you can easily
>contact the appropiate author above, let him know that the ICR has FINALY
>updated this booklet. Apparently all the flack about it on the information
>superfreeway has had an effect. The copy I got at the ICR's 2-25-94 has
>clairified their position on pre-cambrian fossils and eliminated unambigious
>claims of dino with man footprints at Paluxy. The new version is undated as
>near as I can tell, but must have been created within the last 6 months or
>so as the copy I got at the ICR office then was dated 1986 and still
>included the claim, "fine clear tracks of dinosaurs and man".
>
>We're making progress! Now if only they would do some science instead of
>just responding to it.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank