IOC Dilemma & Debate Debrief
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Showdown in Denver – As Told by an Outsider
Showdown in Denver – As Told by an Outsider
Last year I volunteered for a “bump” on an overbooked flight. In compensation I received an airline travel voucher that had to be redeemed within one year. Having heard that Bob Enyart was going to be involved in an Age-of-the-Earth debate on a weekend that was free for me, I decided to use my airline ticket and attend.
I had expected - and hoped - that the old-earth debaters would show that much of the evidence that Bob advances for his young-earth view was fallacious. The credentials of the team members clearly weighted the pre-debate expectations towards the old-earthers. Both old-earthers were PhD’s, one with his training and work experience in geology, a science central to the question of the age of the earth. Bob admits his science background is primarily from an amateur level, supplemented by some work experience years ago for an aerospace company and some computer background. Bob’s companion on his side of the debate was an articulate fundamentalist High School teacher with a Masters degree in science.
Bob was the opening presenter, unleashing a carefully presented set of arguments buttressed with a well-prepared set of visual aids. The old-earthers then opened their side with a relatively short and generic purely verbal presentation that did not address many of the issues that Bob had brought up, and offered little direct science that supported their own position. These opening salvos set the tone for the remainder of the debate. At no time did the old-earthers present a clear logical defense of their ideas. I was left with the distinct impression that the old-earth proponents had come to the debate with the attitude that Bob was an amateur whose young-earth ideas could be easily refuted by the PhDs. They seriously underestimated their opposition. Their lack of serious preparation was very evident at several junctures, such as relying on generic “It is ridiculous to think that such and such could have happened so quickly” type arguments. Particularly revealing was the response they offered in the post-debate Q and A session in which the panel responded to written questions from the audience. One question asked for the best scientific evidence for an old-earth, to which their rambling reply was that there was evidence from astronomy that supported that idea. They completely fumbled giving much better and more immediate evidences.
A substantial part of the debate dealt with theological issues – such as the resolution of the day-age controversy in Genesis. From my non-biblical perspective I simply listened to those parts of the debate without strong feelings either way – not unlike I would have done had if it had been a Hindu and a Moslem arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
There was one idea expressed in various forms that both sides were united on. They kept saying that incorrect scientific ideas advocated by religion serves as fuel for those most God-hating people – the evolutionists. It was clear from the tone and content of what they said that the motives of those evolutionists (synonym – atheists)(in their minds) were pretty despicable. Thankfully, I didn’t see anyone in the chapel that seemed to be motivated by the desire to avoid God that they described. Of course I was there, and I am a strong believer in both an old-earth and in evolution. But I looked inside myself to see if the consummately sinister and anti-God motives they keep attributing to the atheists they described fit me. No, much in line with Zakath – I look inside myself and find something radically different from a desperate need to find excuses to reject God. Instead my feelings are based on an extended and honest search for truth, starting from, as Zakath did also, a belief in God. This search resulted in a not particularly expected or desired conclusion - that the evidence for God is not only not convincing, but is very weak. No hatred of God involved, no need to comb the halls of science to buttress atheism, no need to adopt a belief in and old-earth just to allow time for evolution. Just an honest admission to myself and to others of the conclusions I have reached. If you want to see me really lying, you will have to find me giving testimony to a profound belief in God. I prefer cooking in Hell with a clean conscience to lying about my feelings on God. In line with what Bob advocates at the end of each of his shows – in this I am “doing right – and risking the consequences”. (But do you think I will make it into heaven if I have a well-timed change of heart as I see a run-away semi about to obliterate me?)
So for me the debate was a little bit frustrating. I watched as Bob, with the finesse that has become part of his hallmark, clearly gained the right to put another notch in his debate gun. Science needs good defenders. Sometimes, as happened Saturday night, the defenders of science are overconfident, and when the smoke clears, science has been kidnapped and hidden from view, and a counterfeit has been substituted. I wish it were not so, but in life, and in science, our wishes have little to do with reality. Let me know when the next debate is coming. Maybe if someone slaps the next defenders of science up aside the head, they will realize that in a debate when credentials are placed in opposition to a slick presentation, the credentials won’t mean much.
I must commend the demeanor of the people attending. Bob was certainly cordial, and especially welcomed me when he learned of my leanings. Just prior to the start of the debate, Bob asked me to keep an open mind. I did (but not so open that it was in danger of falling out). I also identified myself to those audience members I spoke with as being unequivocally an evolutionist and an old-earther. In no case did this information “turn anyone off”, and I had the privilege of talking with several people for a short time. If only courtesy and scientific truth were inseparable!
Showdown in Denver – As Told by an Outsider
Last year I volunteered for a “bump” on an overbooked flight. In compensation I received an airline travel voucher that had to be redeemed within one year. Having heard that Bob Enyart was going to be involved in an Age-of-the-Earth debate on a weekend that was free for me, I decided to use my airline ticket and attend.
I had expected - and hoped - that the old-earth debaters would show that much of the evidence that Bob advances for his young-earth view was fallacious. The credentials of the team members clearly weighted the pre-debate expectations towards the old-earthers. Both old-earthers were PhD’s, one with his training and work experience in geology, a science central to the question of the age of the earth. Bob admits his science background is primarily from an amateur level, supplemented by some work experience years ago for an aerospace company and some computer background. Bob’s companion on his side of the debate was an articulate fundamentalist High School teacher with a Masters degree in science.
Bob was the opening presenter, unleashing a carefully presented set of arguments buttressed with a well-prepared set of visual aids. The old-earthers then opened their side with a relatively short and generic purely verbal presentation that did not address many of the issues that Bob had brought up, and offered little direct science that supported their own position. These opening salvos set the tone for the remainder of the debate. At no time did the old-earthers present a clear logical defense of their ideas. I was left with the distinct impression that the old-earth proponents had come to the debate with the attitude that Bob was an amateur whose young-earth ideas could be easily refuted by the PhDs. They seriously underestimated their opposition. Their lack of serious preparation was very evident at several junctures, such as relying on generic “It is ridiculous to think that such and such could have happened so quickly” type arguments. Particularly revealing was the response they offered in the post-debate Q and A session in which the panel responded to written questions from the audience. One question asked for the best scientific evidence for an old-earth, to which their rambling reply was that there was evidence from astronomy that supported that idea. They completely fumbled giving much better and more immediate evidences.
A substantial part of the debate dealt with theological issues – such as the resolution of the day-age controversy in Genesis. From my non-biblical perspective I simply listened to those parts of the debate without strong feelings either way – not unlike I would have done had if it had been a Hindu and a Moslem arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
There was one idea expressed in various forms that both sides were united on. They kept saying that incorrect scientific ideas advocated by religion serves as fuel for those most God-hating people – the evolutionists. It was clear from the tone and content of what they said that the motives of those evolutionists (synonym – atheists)(in their minds) were pretty despicable. Thankfully, I didn’t see anyone in the chapel that seemed to be motivated by the desire to avoid God that they described. Of course I was there, and I am a strong believer in both an old-earth and in evolution. But I looked inside myself to see if the consummately sinister and anti-God motives they keep attributing to the atheists they described fit me. No, much in line with Zakath – I look inside myself and find something radically different from a desperate need to find excuses to reject God. Instead my feelings are based on an extended and honest search for truth, starting from, as Zakath did also, a belief in God. This search resulted in a not particularly expected or desired conclusion - that the evidence for God is not only not convincing, but is very weak. No hatred of God involved, no need to comb the halls of science to buttress atheism, no need to adopt a belief in and old-earth just to allow time for evolution. Just an honest admission to myself and to others of the conclusions I have reached. If you want to see me really lying, you will have to find me giving testimony to a profound belief in God. I prefer cooking in Hell with a clean conscience to lying about my feelings on God. In line with what Bob advocates at the end of each of his shows – in this I am “doing right – and risking the consequences”. (But do you think I will make it into heaven if I have a well-timed change of heart as I see a run-away semi about to obliterate me?)
So for me the debate was a little bit frustrating. I watched as Bob, with the finesse that has become part of his hallmark, clearly gained the right to put another notch in his debate gun. Science needs good defenders. Sometimes, as happened Saturday night, the defenders of science are overconfident, and when the smoke clears, science has been kidnapped and hidden from view, and a counterfeit has been substituted. I wish it were not so, but in life, and in science, our wishes have little to do with reality. Let me know when the next debate is coming. Maybe if someone slaps the next defenders of science up aside the head, they will realize that in a debate when credentials are placed in opposition to a slick presentation, the credentials won’t mean much.
I must commend the demeanor of the people attending. Bob was certainly cordial, and especially welcomed me when he learned of my leanings. Just prior to the start of the debate, Bob asked me to keep an open mind. I did (but not so open that it was in danger of falling out). I also identified myself to those audience members I spoke with as being unequivocally an evolutionist and an old-earther. In no case did this information “turn anyone off”, and I had the privilege of talking with several people for a short time. If only courtesy and scientific truth were inseparable!
Flipper
New member
You were there too? I wish I had known - a bunch of the theistically inclined and two atheists went out afterwards for a meal. I asked if any TOL people were there, but according to the Godisnowhere people, there weren't. Although there's a good sized Denver contingent, I guess they were busy that weekend.
I also talked to Bob Enyart afterwards. I found him to be quite cordial and he gave me a copy of Walt Brown's book, which was generous of him bearing in mind I was a stranger.
A salutary reminder that even if you are implacably opposed to the views of another, they are not always as monstrous as we would like to paint them. We all have a habit of making our opposition two dimensional, but it's a bad mistake to do so.
I now find myself in the amusing position of owing Bob. Perhaps I will mail him some books or *gulp* call his show and do my best to argue my side by way of repayment.
Mind you, the next talk night he was wibbling on about punching transexuals in the face for using the women's toilets, so it's important not to go too far in the opposite direction either. I mean, I doubt there's going to be any group hugs any time soon.
I also talked to Bob Enyart afterwards. I found him to be quite cordial and he gave me a copy of Walt Brown's book, which was generous of him bearing in mind I was a stranger.
A salutary reminder that even if you are implacably opposed to the views of another, they are not always as monstrous as we would like to paint them. We all have a habit of making our opposition two dimensional, but it's a bad mistake to do so.
I now find myself in the amusing position of owing Bob. Perhaps I will mail him some books or *gulp* call his show and do my best to argue my side by way of repayment.
Mind you, the next talk night he was wibbling on about punching transexuals in the face for using the women's toilets, so it's important not to go too far in the opposite direction either. I mean, I doubt there's going to be any group hugs any time soon.
- Status