This is a follow up to Rob Dillon's summary of his recent debate with Walter Brown.
Brown's initial 40-min presentation showed why many people are reluctant to engage in such debates. He covered a wide range of scientific fields, such as genetics, paleontology, the complexity of life, geological formations, radiometric dating, astronomy, etc. Including various charts he displayed (e.g., geological anomalies which supposedly support a worldwide flood), he probably made about a hundred claims. These were, for the most part, misunderstandings or misrepresentations of science; invalid claims or arguments; and statements which may have been true (e.g., complex features of living things) but which in no way cast doubt on the validity of evolution. Most, if not all of these, have been answered previously in the numerous books and articles written by scientists to counter the creationist attacks on science. The problem facing an evolutionist debater is that it is much easier to make numerous invalid claims than it is to explain what is wrong with them, especially to a lay audience. Given the time limitations in a debate, the best an evolutionist would be able to do is to refute selected arguments, and point out that the others can also be dealt with. Even so, I am afraid that an audience would be left with the impression that both sides could present persuasive-sounding cases, and therefore it is only right that both sides be taught in public school science classes.
Dillon showed how the different layers were dated by both K-Ar and Rb-Sr methods, with samples sent to numerous laboratories for independent analyses, and with results in excellent agreement. He did get in one attack on creationists claims at this point (asking if the audience thought that all of the dating laboratories had engaged in a conspiracy to trick people). However, I wished he had used the opportunity to refute one of Brown's more outrageous claims, that fossils are (using circular reasoning) dated based on their assumed evolutionary age. Here were numerous objectively-dated samples of volcanic ash, which conclusively established the age of each layer independent of any assumptions concerning evolution.
To go into such detail involves a trade-off, however, and Dillon did not spend any time covering some of the major classes of evidence for evolution, such as the hierarchical pattern of shared similarities (anatomical, physiological, biochemical), which to me is the strongest area of evidence; the fossil record, except for hominids; embryology; vestigial features; and biogeography.
Rather than a typical series of timed rebuttal speeches, the second half of the debate had an unusual format, referred to as a "dialogue." Each speaker was allotted a total of 30 min, but in a back and forth style in which his clock was running when he talked (sort of like a chess match). By repeatedly provoking Dillon to answer questions, thus using up his time, Brown was left with six minutes at the end to speak unopposed, summarizing his major points and repeating his appeal for equal time for creationism in the classroom.
Dillon made a good point in stating that evolution was an observation, and that we don't need to explain everything about how it works in order that there be a convincing case that evolution has happened. He used gravity as an example of a demonstrable phenomena which cannot be explained. However, I think he should have then discussed some of the progress which is being made at the theoretical level, and the fact that our knowledge advances all the time; he left the impression that scientists have no idea of how complex features arose. When he pointed out that the question of how complex features arise was "not relevant" to the truth of evolution, there was laughter among the audience members. They see it as very relevant, an insurmountable obstacle to evolution, and they need to know that progress is being made in constructing evolutionary scenarios for the origin of complex structures.
In dealing with Brown's questions on fossilization, I think Dillon showed that he was far more knowledgeable, and that Brown's ideas were simplistic or incorrect. However, in moving away from his area of expertise (which is necessary in an all-encompassing debate such as this) he had mixed results. While I wished he had hit Brown much harder on the latter's age of the earth claims (Dillon's write up indicates that he was waiting for Brown to repeat these points in the dialogue section before responding to them), he made an effective case for regarding physical constants as constant until shown otherwise. When Brown stated that there are measurements showing the speed of light has decreased, Dillon countered with what I considered his best line of the evening: "I've never seen someone so enamored with ancient data." But when he moved to categories of evidence for the Big Bang, Dillon confused some of the concepts, an error which Brown was able to pounce on.
Overall, Rob's report gives the impression that he "won" the debate. While it was a fairly good effort for a first-time debater, I doubt that most of the audience would agree that he got the better of Brown, or that Brown seemed to "cave in." Dillon probably showed them that an evolutionist can be a nice guy, and maybe even a good Christian. He also showed that evolutionists can come up with a lot of data which can be interpreted as supportive of evolution. However, I think too many of Brown's claims went unanswered, leaving the audience with the impression that evolution faces insurmountable difficulties.
Finally, Rob gave some recommendations for future debates. He suggested a "3-member response team" to deal with the problem of the range of topics covered. I'm not sure this would work, because it would give the creationist the appearance of being an underdog (one against three), enhancing his stature with the audience. It also wouldn't overcome the fact that far too many claims, in too many subject areas, can be brought up to be dealt with in any depth. I think it would be preferable to have a debate focused on a single topic, e.g., the age of the earth, where the evolutionist could cover the scientific evidence and also refute selected creationist arguments in depth.
Copyright 1992-2005, The Association for Rational Thought