What do you think?
Rate this book
Skeptics vs. Creationists: A formal debate hosted by the Sydney Morning Herald
Written debate, hosted in June 2005 by the Sydney Morning Herald, between representatives of Creation Ministries International (Australia) and Australian Skeptics.
48 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2006
9 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 1, 2024
A SHORT WRITTEN DEBATE BETWEEN TWO AUSTRALIAN GROUPS
The Introduction to this 2006 booklet explains, “In June 2005, Creation Ministries International-Australia accepted an invitation for a written ‘mini-debate’ with the Australian Skeptics … The topic was ‘Did the universe and life evolve, or was it specially created in six days?’ This was an exciting opportunity to get the message out to many thousands of secular folk… The format included three essays each up to 1500 words: Opening essay… Second essay of rebuttal and/or new material… Final essay of rebuttal, etc. All arguments were prepared unseen by the opposing side. The debate generated unprecedented interest; normally, a few dozen comments are posted on this popular secular media site in response to issues and articles, but hundreds and hundreds of people have posted reactions to this exchange.”
The Creationist view was presented by four scientists from the Creation Ministries International (CMI): Don Batten, Jonathan Sarfati, Tasman Walker, and Carl Wieland.
The opening creationist essay noted, “Facts always have to be interpreted within a framework (paradigm)… Both creationists and evolutionists have the same facts… but different assumptions… The evolutionary world view must explain the origin of first life, for evolution to even start. So materialists have faith that life began from non-living chemicals … then try to find evidence for it… There are vast hurdles for non-living chemicals to overcome to form life, because real chemistry works in the opposite direction… every discovery of molecular biology underlines the impossibility of such an entity arising spontaneously.” (Pg. 11-12)
They add, “Hundreds of traditions about a global Flood, each with features in common with the biblical account, are known form indigenous peoples around the world. These provide evidence of the reality of that account.” (Pg. 14)
The Skeptics’ opening essay states, “This debate … is really about the evidence for two of the many possible scenarios about the origin of what we see around us today. I will call these the Creationist view and the Scientific view… these are only two of many possibilities… what is required is to evaluate the evidence for both and to compare the bodies of evidence.” (Pg. 17)
It continues, “One of the criticisms levelled against evolution is that it is ‘only a theory.’ This criticism is disingenuous… Science is always a work in progress. The fact that the theory of evolution cannot provide absolute answers to all questions about the origins of life does not invalidate the theory any more than the fact that research has not yet uncovered a cure for cancer invalidates medicine… All science expects of a theory is that is be testable, falsifiable and corrigible. The theory of evolution is all three.” (Pg. 22)
The second creationist essay observes, “It’s silly when some… claim that creation is not scientific because it’s not falsifiable or testable, then turn around and claim that creationist claims have been examined (i.e. tested) and proved false (i.e. falsified). In reality, both paradigms have led to fulfilled and failed predictions; in each case the models are refined, but the underlying assumptions (unprovable beliefs) remain the same.” (Pg. 23-24)
It continues, “The Skeptics are out of date to claim that humans and chimps have 98% similarity in their DNA---the figure is more like 95%, or less. And with 3 billion DNA ‘letters’ in our genome, this is 150 million differences, or 50 large books world of information that needs to be generated and there is not adequate mechanism to do so.” (Pg. 26)
The second Skeptics essay states, “Answers in Genesis [AIG](now Creation Ministries International) … creationism has not advanced since 1997 … This is consistent with the change of name from the ‘Creation Research Foundation’ to ‘Answers in Genesis’ Once they claimed to do research and science; now there is no need for research because everything anyone needs to know can be found in a 17th century book.” (Pg. 29) [NOTE: CMI is an organization for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa; AIG is an organization for the U.S. and UK; they derived from an earlier organization, but they are NOT the same---in fact, CMI has filed lawsuits against AIG. In the closing essay, they note, “our name change was not a ‘backing away from science.’” (Pg. 35)]
They note, “At least we come to the argument from incredulity. ‘If I can’t understand it, God did it.’… Evolution is not a teleological process, it is a method of trial-and-error, with what works in a particular environment surviving and multiplying better… the fact that we might not know every step in the evolution of roots and leaves into gills and lungs just shows that there are things that we don’t know. Yet.” (Pg. 33)
In the closing creationist essay, they state, “It’s almost embarrassing to have to give lessons in rudimentary evolutionary theory… Our opponents lamely state that beneficial mutations exist---as if we denied that, despite our having described beneficial (but downhill) mutations earlier.” (Pg. 37)
Of the ‘Catastrophic carving of [the] Grand Canyon,’ they suggest, “Nowadays, even some evolutionary geologists hold to this. And nearly everyone now believes that the US’s entire Channeled Scablands, including the granite Grand Coulee Gorge, were carved rapidly through cataclysmic Ice Age flooding.” (Pg. 39)
The Skeptics state in the closing essay, “It is the reliance on the Bible which is most puzzling… as our opponents have now stated that the Authorized King James version of the Bible from 1611… is, in fact, an unreliable translation!... What was God thinking when He let King James’s editors put this book together? Why did He allow them to make mistakes?... The real question becomes, ‘What else in the Bible is wrong?’” (Pg. 44)
This debate did not really result in each side ENGAGING the other side… still, it will interest some who are studying the Creation/Evolution controversy.
The Introduction to this 2006 booklet explains, “In June 2005, Creation Ministries International-Australia accepted an invitation for a written ‘mini-debate’ with the Australian Skeptics … The topic was ‘Did the universe and life evolve, or was it specially created in six days?’ This was an exciting opportunity to get the message out to many thousands of secular folk… The format included three essays each up to 1500 words: Opening essay… Second essay of rebuttal and/or new material… Final essay of rebuttal, etc. All arguments were prepared unseen by the opposing side. The debate generated unprecedented interest; normally, a few dozen comments are posted on this popular secular media site in response to issues and articles, but hundreds and hundreds of people have posted reactions to this exchange.”
The Creationist view was presented by four scientists from the Creation Ministries International (CMI): Don Batten, Jonathan Sarfati, Tasman Walker, and Carl Wieland.
The opening creationist essay noted, “Facts always have to be interpreted within a framework (paradigm)… Both creationists and evolutionists have the same facts… but different assumptions… The evolutionary world view must explain the origin of first life, for evolution to even start. So materialists have faith that life began from non-living chemicals … then try to find evidence for it… There are vast hurdles for non-living chemicals to overcome to form life, because real chemistry works in the opposite direction… every discovery of molecular biology underlines the impossibility of such an entity arising spontaneously.” (Pg. 11-12)
They add, “Hundreds of traditions about a global Flood, each with features in common with the biblical account, are known form indigenous peoples around the world. These provide evidence of the reality of that account.” (Pg. 14)
The Skeptics’ opening essay states, “This debate … is really about the evidence for two of the many possible scenarios about the origin of what we see around us today. I will call these the Creationist view and the Scientific view… these are only two of many possibilities… what is required is to evaluate the evidence for both and to compare the bodies of evidence.” (Pg. 17)
It continues, “One of the criticisms levelled against evolution is that it is ‘only a theory.’ This criticism is disingenuous… Science is always a work in progress. The fact that the theory of evolution cannot provide absolute answers to all questions about the origins of life does not invalidate the theory any more than the fact that research has not yet uncovered a cure for cancer invalidates medicine… All science expects of a theory is that is be testable, falsifiable and corrigible. The theory of evolution is all three.” (Pg. 22)
The second creationist essay observes, “It’s silly when some… claim that creation is not scientific because it’s not falsifiable or testable, then turn around and claim that creationist claims have been examined (i.e. tested) and proved false (i.e. falsified). In reality, both paradigms have led to fulfilled and failed predictions; in each case the models are refined, but the underlying assumptions (unprovable beliefs) remain the same.” (Pg. 23-24)
It continues, “The Skeptics are out of date to claim that humans and chimps have 98% similarity in their DNA---the figure is more like 95%, or less. And with 3 billion DNA ‘letters’ in our genome, this is 150 million differences, or 50 large books world of information that needs to be generated and there is not adequate mechanism to do so.” (Pg. 26)
The second Skeptics essay states, “Answers in Genesis [AIG](now Creation Ministries International) … creationism has not advanced since 1997 … This is consistent with the change of name from the ‘Creation Research Foundation’ to ‘Answers in Genesis’ Once they claimed to do research and science; now there is no need for research because everything anyone needs to know can be found in a 17th century book.” (Pg. 29) [NOTE: CMI is an organization for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa; AIG is an organization for the U.S. and UK; they derived from an earlier organization, but they are NOT the same---in fact, CMI has filed lawsuits against AIG. In the closing essay, they note, “our name change was not a ‘backing away from science.’” (Pg. 35)]
They note, “At least we come to the argument from incredulity. ‘If I can’t understand it, God did it.’… Evolution is not a teleological process, it is a method of trial-and-error, with what works in a particular environment surviving and multiplying better… the fact that we might not know every step in the evolution of roots and leaves into gills and lungs just shows that there are things that we don’t know. Yet.” (Pg. 33)
In the closing creationist essay, they state, “It’s almost embarrassing to have to give lessons in rudimentary evolutionary theory… Our opponents lamely state that beneficial mutations exist---as if we denied that, despite our having described beneficial (but downhill) mutations earlier.” (Pg. 37)
Of the ‘Catastrophic carving of [the] Grand Canyon,’ they suggest, “Nowadays, even some evolutionary geologists hold to this. And nearly everyone now believes that the US’s entire Channeled Scablands, including the granite Grand Coulee Gorge, were carved rapidly through cataclysmic Ice Age flooding.” (Pg. 39)
The Skeptics state in the closing essay, “It is the reliance on the Bible which is most puzzling… as our opponents have now stated that the Authorized King James version of the Bible from 1611… is, in fact, an unreliable translation!... What was God thinking when He let King James’s editors put this book together? Why did He allow them to make mistakes?... The real question becomes, ‘What else in the Bible is wrong?’” (Pg. 44)
This debate did not really result in each side ENGAGING the other side… still, it will interest some who are studying the Creation/Evolution controversy.
Displaying 1 of 1 review