Replies

I took the time to look up this Bob Enyart fellow, and lo and behold! he has a website devoted to himself. If his logic in evolution debates is like this: site,

then he probably argues like Ol' Sparky here. However, that means he probably argues like Gish in a debate, you know, where he's more a master of combative arguementation rather than arguing any evidence. Just my take.

Several noted quacks have done debate tours. Gish is famous for these, and Hovind has done several. The formula for the creationist is to fill every second reciting a canned laundry list of wild claims. Thus the term "drive-by shooting."

The spokesman for mainstream science, who has about the same amount of time, can either try to rebut as much as possible of this (but there isn't time and he/she will not likely have the needed materials at hand) or simply ignore the C side and present the true picture. (There's barely time to do a good job of that.) Either way, a wander-in audience will not see how little science there is in creation science.

By comparision, none of the big C-side quacks like the web as a debate milieu. It's too easy to research bogus claims and show them up.

Dr. Ben Waggoner's approach to debating Hovind is about as good as you can hope to do with limited time. I would love to have seen this one. The slides alone are very nice.

Debate slides.

Don't forget to check out the whale series, Sparky. It's so good these days, and the creationists made so much hay about it back when it wasn't, that Waggoner made it the star of the show.

Alas, the guy's Home Page reveals him as a minion of Satan.