#Gish gallup trial#

A useful format, in which proponents of 'intelligent design' were required to make their case and defend it in the face of criticism, was used at the American Museum of Natural History's forum on 'intelligent design' in April 2002 (a transcript is available: Anonymous 2002). The format should be conducive to educating the audience about evolution and the nature of science.And I am even happier to talk about issues that are central to the controversy in law, religion, philosophy, education, and politics - where, unlike in science, there is real controversy. I am happy to discuss the scientific illegitimacy of creationism, however. I will not defend evolution against a creationist, whether young-earth, old-earth, or 'intelligent design'.

#Gish gallup trial#

Evolution is not on trial in the world of science. The topic of the discussion should not be the scientific legitimacy of evolution.Where, and how, do I draw the line between debating creationists and participating in a public exchange? Here are criteria to consider if you are invited to engage with creationists mano a mano. I steer clear of such events, and, again, I recommend that my colleagues follow suit.īut I do appear in public with creationists, and you may be asked to do the same. I appear with creationists at public events and on radio and television shows, and sometimes these appearances are called 'debates,' but they are not formal debates about evolution of the sort that the Institute for Creation Research or Kent Hovind or the Veritas Forum constantly try to organize. 'I've seen you on Firing Line and Crossfire, and NCSE even sells a videotaped debate with you, Duane Gish, and Hugh Ross! How can you say ‘don't debate creationists' when you debate creationists?' 'But you've debated creationists,' you protest. They confuse the public about evolution and the nature of science they increase the membership and swell the coffers of their creationist sponsors they fuel local enthusiasm for creationism, thereby contributing to public pressure on local teachers to teach creationism or downplay evolution. (Unfortunately, some debate to gratify their egos.)Īs I have argued elsewhere (Scott 1994) and as argued by the other contributors in this issue of RNCSE, such debates are counterproductive. Everyone agrees that scientists should confront the claims of creationists, but how? Are debates of the sort that creationists love to promote the right arena? Not in my opinion.ĭebaters on our side of this issue, I assume, participate in the hope of improving the public's understanding of evolution and the nature of science, leading to increased support for the teaching of evolution in the public schools uncompromised by religious dogma.