Creation scientists tend to win debates with evolutionists
Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970's particularly in the United States. Given the lack of evidence for the evolutionary paradigm and the abundant evidence for biblical creation, this is not surprising. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.
In August of 1979, Dr. Henry Morris reported in an Institute for Creation Research letter: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.” Morris also said regarding the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”
Generally speaking, leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientists because creation scientists tend to win the debates. In addition, the atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior concerning his refusal creation scientists.
Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the Christian apologetic website True Free Thinker which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..." In an article entitled Are Kansas Evolutionists Afraid of a Fair Debate? the Discovery Institute states the following:
|“||Defenders of Darwin's theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not.||”|
In 1994, the arch-evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott made this confession concerning creation vs. evolution debates:
|“|| During the last six or eight months, I have received more calls about debates between creationists and evolutionists than I have encountered for a couple of years, it seems. I do not know what has inspired this latest outbreak, but I am not sure it is doing much to improve science education.
Why do I say this? Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science" or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution -- and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.
In 2010, the worldwide atheist community was challenged to a debate by Creation Ministries International as prominent atheists were speaking at a 2010 global atheist convention in Australia. Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and other prominent atheists refused to debate Creation Ministries International.
- Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists
- Huxley Memorial Debate
- Richard Dawkins and debate
- Atheism debates
- Atheism and cowardice
- Rebuttals to atheist arguments
- Myer and Sternberg vs. Shermer and Prothero debate
- The overwhelming proof and evidence for evolution - satire
- Ankerberg, John, and Weldon, John, Truth in Advertising: Damaging the Cause of Science
- Reason or Rhetoric by Henry Morris, PhD
- Voices for evolution - John Ankerberg website