AiG debates leading evolutionist on CNN

[Gup20]

AiG debates leading evolutionist on CNN!
by Mark Looy, AiG–USA

November 30, 2004

AiG-USA’s newest scientist, astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle, appeared in his first live TV program yesterday … and it was a significant one.

A national US audience watched Dr. Lisle debate well-known anti-creationist Dr. Eugenie Scott on CNN-TV's “Paula Zahn NOW” program, Monday evening, November 29. The live debate was quickly arranged after the release of a CBS-TV/New York Times poll which revealed that 65% of Americans believe that both creation and evolution should be taught in public schools. (For AiG’s perspective on how origins should be presented in schools, read the last paragraphs of Poll by liberal group reveals: Americans want creation in public schools!)

Dr. Lisle, who holds a Ph.D. in astrophysics and has recently become a full-time speaker and researcher with Answers in Genesis–USA, exhibited a pleasant, but confident, demeanor as he debated evolutionist Dr. Scott of the innocent-sounding National Center for Science Education (which is really a vehement anti-creationist group). Twice she interrupted Dr. Lisle as he was speaking, and she also defended censorship (i.e. not wanting to allow science teachers to criticize evolution in schools).

In the interview, host Paula Zahn noted Dr. Lisle’s scientific credentials, which helped deflect the impression given on the CNN website (and in the set-up piece that preceded the debate) that the creation/evolution controversy was only about religion vs. science. When Dr. Scott stated dogmatically that there is no data to support creation, Dr. Lisle cited the scientific research of creationist Dr. D. Russell Humphreys of ICR on magnetic fields and its relationship to the creation model of earth history. (For more, see The earth's magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young.)

At the same time, Dr. Lisle was unapologetic about his beliefs when he declared that the real issue about origins is this: are you for God's Word or against it? It was a good way to summarize AiG’s mission to proclaim biblical authority.

AiG does not have permission to archive the program as a video on our website, but it is possible that www.CNN.com may archive the video on its site. Also, free transcripts are sometimes available of the program at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/pzn.html .


I recorded the video for those who wish to see it -

http://www.gup20.com/debate.zip Right click and save target as to download it. It's approximately 85MB.

Personally, I was impressed with Dr. Lisle's ability to remain focused on the truth and not go down the diatribe rabbit trails Dr. Scott kept trying to lead him down. It was precisely the definition of not "answering a fool according to their folly" as is written in the Word. I was also impressed with his composure. Dr. Scott got visibly agitated and started interrupting, but Dr. Lisle remained calm and presented truth respectfully.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Translation: Dr. Lisle was able to keep asserting the same thing over and over while offering no refutation to the many points made by Dr. Scott. Science truth is to be determined by who remains the calmest, not by analysis of the facts involved. Refusing to consider the opposing arguments and calmly ignoring them is therefore the surest road to truth.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Translation: Dr. Lisle was able to keep asserting the same thing over and over while offering no refutation to the many points made by Dr. Scott. Science truth is to be determined by who remains the calmest, not by analysis of the facts involved. Refusing to consider the opposing arguments and calmly ignoring them is therefore the surest road to truth.

Dr. Scott is a leading protagonist and propagandist for the exclusive teaching of evolutionary religious beliefs in US public schools.

 

[ChurchBoy]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Translation: Dr. Lisle was able to keep asserting the same thing over and over while offering no refutation to the many points made by Dr. Scott. Science truth is to be determined by who remains the calmest, not by analysis of the facts involved. Refusing to consider the opposing arguments and calmly ignoring them is therefore the surest road to truth.

Just curious Paul did you watch the debate?

I've been a supporter of AiG for a while now. I went to Japan in 2002 and on the way I read Ken Ham's book, Creation Evangelism. Our group met a sweet Japanese lady named Myumi. She had many questions about Christianity, history science, evoltion, etc. Mr Ham's book was a great resource answering her many questions. Two weeks after we returned she gave her life to Jesus Christ.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by ChurchBoy:

I've been a supporter of AiG for a while now. I went to Japan in 2002 and on the way I read Ken Ham's book, Creation Evangelism. Our group met a sweet Japanese lady named Myumi. She had many questions about Christianity, history science, evoltion, etc. Mr Ham's book was a great resource answering her many questions. Two weeks after we returned she gave her life to Jesus Christ.

Yeah, creation evangelism is a great way to expose the prejudiced assumptions of the intelligent design plan of evolutionism.

 

[ChurchBoy]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ChurchBoy:

I've been a supporter of AiG for a while now. I went to Japan in 2002 and on the way I read Ken Ham's book, Creation Evangelism. Our group met a sweet Japanese lady named Myumi. She had many questions about Christianity, history science, evoltion, etc. Mr Ham's book was a great resource answering her many questions. Two weeks after we returned she gave her life to Jesus Christ.

Yeah, creation evangelism is a great way to expose the prejudiced assumptions of the intelligent design plan of evolutionism. </font>[/QUOTE]Not sure what you mean?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by ChurchBoy:
Not sure what you mean?

Everything in nature functions according to intelligently designed physical laws and plans, no?

 

[Gup20]

Translation: Dr. Lisle was able to keep asserting the same thing over and over while offering no refutation to the many points made by Dr. Scott.

Appearantly you didn't see it. In fact, Dr. Lisle gave a variety of arguments, and the ONLY argument that Dr. Scott was able to muster (without credibility) was that there was 'absolutely no evidece whatsoever to support creation'. She just kept saying that over and over. Dr. Lisle, on the other hand, pointed out scientific information and gave at least one example where Dr. Scott was wrong.

Science truth is to be determined by who remains the calmest, not by analysis of the facts involved. Refusing to consider the opposing arguments and calmly ignoring them is therefore the surest road to truth.

Again, it appears you didn't see it. Dr. Lisle remained calm and collected, while Dr. Scott seemed fraseled and impatiently interrupted Dr. Lisle on several occasions.

Yeah, creation evangelism is a great way to expose the prejudiced assumptions of the intelligent design plan of evolutionism.

It is also a great way to show the prejudiced assumptions of uniformitarianism and evolution.

Everything in nature functions according to intelligently designed physical laws and plans, no?

Yes... however that is why we call many Biblical events 'supernatural' because they go against the current natural laws - for example healing. Certainly we cannot use a lost and fallen POST-FLOOD world and a uniformitarian mindset to determine pre-fall (from the creation to the Fall of Adam and Flood of Noah) and pre-flood nature. For example, the Bible says the Lion and Lamb were no afraid of each other, nor was there any death before Adam Sinned (romans 5:12, Genesis 3). Nor was there any need to eat food to stay alive (Genesis 3). Clearly the conditions before the fall were drammatically different.

However, lets not get too far off topic - who saw the broadcast or downloaded it from the link I provided?

 

[Gup20]

AiG now has a transcript of the debate:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1201debate.asp

On 29 November, there was a nationally televised mini-debate/interview on creation vs. evolution—see AiG debates leading evolutionist on CNN! AiG’s newest staff scientist Dr. Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist, debated leading anti-creationist Dr. Eugenie Scott, an anthropologist and ardent atheistic humanist and executive director of the pretentiously named National Center for Science Education. This has nothing to with real science such as physics and chemistry, as will be shown, and everything to do with promoting materialistic philosophy and suppressing dissent.

Below, we have reprinted the full transcript so readers can see for themselves how Dr. Lisle was (unlike Dr. Scott) acknowledged as a real scientist, and made some instructive key points in a very limited time under pressure. Dr. Scott resorted to interruptions and then to making the most absurd closing comment about the work of Dr. Humphreys, knowing that Dr. Lisle could not respond. But Dr. Humphreys himself asked her in an open letter to explain her bizarre claims about what he said, as you will see …

We also have some hyperlinks to articles for more information, and footnotes to AiG’s further comments, since Dr. Lisle properly confined himself to key points in the time limit, and could not say everything that could be said.

YOu can go to the article to read the rest.

 

[Gup20]

Another interesting thing about this Poll that sparked the debate is that 65% of Americans believe that God created human beings just as they are... that they didn't evolve.

I find that to be an interesting stat/poll considering that people like The Galatian say with frequent repitition that 'the majority of people think evolution is true'. Well here in fact we see that the majority of people in the USA do NOT think evolution is true.

 

[ChurchBoy]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ChurchBoy:
Not sure what you mean?

Everything in nature functions according to intelligently designed physical laws and plans, no? </font>[/QUOTE]I agree.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

OK I read the transcript and found nothing from either side except assertion that they are right and the other side is wrong!

 

[UTEOTW]

Yeah, that is about it, Paul. No one rally bothered to get in any facts. How could they in such a format!

AIG seems so proud that he was able to work in a vague reference to Humphreys decaying magnetic field theory, even crowing about the ability to predict the magnetic field strength of Neptune and Uranus. What they neglect to tell you is that the model can do this because he picks an arbitrary starting value for the field. By doing so, you can make the current value be anything you want. He touts his ability to predict the values with an order of magnitude or so when anyone could have done so simply by looking at the previously known values for the other planets and making an appropriate guess based on how the field strength varies with size.

Not impressed. Either with Humphreys or with the whole "debate." These guys want a debate, they should do so in written form in a public forum over a period of weeks to months. The YEers would get killed in such a format. It gives plenty of time to expose their lies and to take the time needed to build a convincing case for a complex subject. For a microcosm of this, look at our own debates here. The OEers throw out verifiable fact after verifiable fact. The YEers have no logical or factual ability to refute or make their own case so they are forced to dance around the edges with things for which they have no support.

 

[The Galatian]

I quit giving any creedence at all to AIG after I found they had edited the statement of a scientist to make it appear that he believed exactly the opposite of what he actually said.

People who have the truth, have no need to deceive.

 

[Amen]

Hi Gup20, thanks for posting the link to the video! Thank God for AiG!

 

[The Galatian]

Gup has been snockered about the Gallup Poll:

"The public has not notably changed its opinion on this question since Gallup started asking it in 1982."

Here's the actual data:
2004
God created man in his present form: 45%
Man developed, with or without God: 51%
No opinion 4%

2001:
God created man in his present form: 45%
Man developed, with or without God: 49%
No opinion 5%

1999:
God created man in his present form: 47%
Man developed, with or without God: 49%
No opinion 4%

1997:
God created man in his present form: 44%
Man developed, with or without God: 49%
No opinion 7%

1993:
God created man in his present form: 44%
Man developed, with or without God: 46%
No opinion 9%

1982:
God created man in his present form: 45%
Man developed, with or without God: 47%
No opinion 4%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default.aspx?ci=14107

It's pretty slow progress; for the first time this year, a majority of Americans think humans devoloped rather than being created as they are, a few thousand years ago.

There's a long way to go, but it's moving in the right direction. Creationists are a minority even in America, and they are very rare in the rest of the world.