Citizens for Science

Here are some reports and exchanges over last Friday night's debate in Colorado Springs.

From Steve Mahone, participant, Secretary/Treasurer of CCFS
On a clam, Friday evening I marched onto a stage along with physics
professor Sam Milazzo and "Dr." Kent Hovind to debate the question, "Science
or Religion?" Here's my (admittedly biased) assessment of how the evening
unfolded:

1) The organizer of the debate sent an email to all participants on the
preceding Wednesday stating: "Slides and multimedia will not be used for
this debate. Your verbal presentation is your only means of communication."
Of course, neither I nor Sam Milazzo brought slides -- but guess what,
Hovind showed up with his power point presentation and the organizers
changed the rules FIVE MINUTES before the debate began to accommodate him!
So much for fair play.

2) The crowd was DECIDEDLY pro-creation. No surprise there, since the event
was sponsored by Campus Crusade for Christ. There was standing room only,
probably 400 people in attendance.

3) During my opening remarks, a young man in his twenties sitting 5 feet
from my podium kept "heckling" me with statements like "There are no
intermediate fossils!", "Newton believed in God!" He was "polite" enough to
stop when I pointed to him and shook my head.

4) After the opening remarks the questions from the moderator began and ALL
of them were phrased in a way that was critical of evolution. Not a single
one put Creationism/ID on the defensive. I was really surprised that the
questions were not more balanced since I was assured by Campus Crusade for
Christ that this would be the case.

5) There was no time for audience questions as was promised in the
itinerary -- I doubt that this was purposeful but it showed how haphazardly
the moderator stayed with the debate format.

Hovind has an extensive inventory of slides for just about any subject that
could be breached when discussing religion and science -- I have to give him
credit there. One of the topics that was brought up was racism and eugenics
as practiced by Margaret Sanger, I commented that racism and eugenics had
little to do with Sanger, and, in fact, our own "Christian Nation" had an
official eugenics department from 1905-1945 until it was shutdown, not by
pastors or religious activists, but by scientists and psychiatric experts
that could no longer justify its validity. Hovind then used a rapid fire
succession of slides using quotes/misquotes to claim that evolutionary
thinking leads to racism -- he explained nothing!

Another question asked, "How can the evolution of separate sexes (male and
female) be explained by evolution and why are females more complex than
males?" Both myself and Sam explained that asexual reproduction was how it
all began, but when the exchange of genetic material occurred this provided
a distinct advantage to those organisms because a greater range of diversity
in the genome was available for natural selection to work with. The male and
female gender grew out of this advantage over the subsequent millions of
years of evolution. Hovind simply put up a slide and exclaimed, "God made
male and female separate ...." Ugh!

When asked about President Bush's recent statement that students should be
taught both sides (which I assumed meant including ID in science classes),
Hovind put up a slide about the bacterial flagellum and mentioned Behe by
name as a strong advocate for teaching ID. I countered that Behe DOES NOT
believe in a young earth, he accepts species to species evolution, and does
not support the claim of a world wide flood occurring some 4,500 years
ago -- all of which is in direct conflict with what Creationists like Hovind
believe. I pointed out that ID offers nothing to aid science and how would
ID even be presented to students, especially if a Hindu, Muslim, etc. was
teaching the class. Sam Milazzo also pointed out that he would have NO IDEA
how to even teach such a concept. Hovind offered no advice whatsoever on how
to address this issue. Surprise!

Unfortunately, Hovind managed to "get the goat" of Sam Milazzo by
challenging his integrity as a teacher by claiming that Sam is only
indoctrinating his students with the religion of Evolution and that Sam
assumes all Christians are "dumb". Sam was (obviously) offended and began
walking off the stage, saying that I won't allow someone to put untrue words
in my mouth. I intercepted Sam and convinced him to finish the debate --
which he did. Anyone in attendance could see that Sam is a passionate and
concerned teacher who only has an intolerance for misinformation and
ignorance.

This was my first time on stage as a participant (I've moderated debates
before) and I learned a lot about how to approach such events (it's MUCH
different than doing radio). I would certainly change a few things
concerning my game plan (like more attacking of the creationist claims) but
other things I wouldn't (like remaining composed and respectful even in the
face of ignorant statements). When you go into an event like this you have
the expectation of always saying the right thing and having the perfect
anecdote at your fingertips - yeah, right! Nevertheless, if you stay the
course you're going to provide strength and inspiration to those already on
the side of science and, every once in a while, you might just make a
difference to a mind that is still undecided.

Letter from CCFS member Elle Lothlorien, who attended the debate with her husband Colin:

Dear Mr. Anderson:

My husband and I attended the debate last night at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs campus and, as an audience member, I would like to give you a bit of well-meant feedback.

The first thing that struck me as the debate began with opening statements was the use of Powerpoint slides by Mr. Hovind. When I realized that neither Mr. Milazzo nor Mr. Mahone were using slides, I was dumbfounded, as many tenets of evolutionary theory can best be shown using photographs of transitional forms, chromosomal and genetic mutations, etc. After the debate I approached Mr. Mahone and asked why he had not thought to use visuals. His reply absolutely astounded me. He said that he was told by the hosting organization, Campus Crusade for Christ: "Slides and multimedia will not be used for this debate. Your verbal presentation is your only means of communication." Accordingly, neither Mr. Mahone nor Mr. Milazzo brought slides or visuals. However, when Mr. Hovind appeared with a Powerpoint presentation, neither you nor members of your hosting organization hesitated to change the rules with only minutes to go before the debate began.

That this is spectacularly unfair goes without saying. Any marketing or media expert will tell you that a picture is worth a thousand words. Mr. Hovind was given the unfair upper-hand immediately even before the opening statements were finished. For your organization to change the rules to benefit only one participant turns what might have been a fairly balanced debate into a one-man dog-and-pony show. You could not help but observe the unfair differences in the presentations between the verbal-only presenters and the visual razzle-dazzle of Mr. Hovind. That your organization would allow such a last-minute rule change speaks volumes about your organization's commitment to the rules of debate.

Furthermore, I am aghast that neither you nor anyone in your organization thought it fit to explain to the audience the fact that the rules had been changed and that, though all three participants were told that they could not use visuals, Mr. Hovind had brought his anyway and you were allowing him to use them. This would have gone a long way to demonstrating to the audience your inherent bias towards creationism as well as the character of Mr. Hovind and his commitment to fair play.

Additionally, I am stunned by how long your organization allowed the disruptive behavior of the audience to continue before finally admonishing them. I witnessed several audience members making threatening gestures towards the two panelists making arguments for evolutionary theory. I found the "hallelujahs" and Bible-waving to be in extremely poor taste, as well as the incessant clapping, heckling and booing directed at both sides throughout. Surely competing viewpoints can be presented in the future without turning a formal debate into a football match. Further, allowing Mr. Hovind to suggest to the audience that Mr. Milazzo thought they were "dumb" was unconscionable. The moderator would have been within his rights to admonish Mr. Hovind for such a remark but he said nothing, allowing Mr. Hovind's unprofessionalism to continue unchallenged.

I was disappointed as well by the extremely poor quality questions that were presented to the three panelists. Honestly: "Why are women more complex than men?" By what scientific standard did your moderator decide that women are more "complex" than men? This very assertion demonstrates an appalling lack of knowledge of male and female physiology, both of which are incredibly complex. Furthermore, I have no idea how one is expected to answer such a nonsensical question from an evolutionary standpoint, which I had assumed was the topic of the debate.

And where were the "tough" questions for the creationist panelist? I heard no criticism of creationism as science from the moderator, no questions regarding how creationists intend to scientifically prove the existence of a "Designer," no queries regarding the legitimacy of a "science" that begins first with a conclusion (i.e. the world is 6000 years old) and then works backwards to declare a result without any scientific experimentation.

A tough question for a creationist might go something like this: "When a distant star is seen to wobble in its orbit, astronomers may hypothesize that the anomaly in the star's orbit is due to an unseen planet orbiting the star. Before they can state such an assertion as fact, they must provide proof. Using incredibly powerful telescopes, they could then prove the existence of the planet in question, thereby verifying their hypothesis through experimentation. Why then, when a creationist hypothesizes that life on Earth was created by a 'Designer',' do they then not have to prove the existence of the 'Designer' through scientific experimentation?" Feel free to use such a question in any upcoming debates you may host. Other tough questions can be formulated with the assistance of an evolutionary biologist or, indeed, just about any person familiar with the scientific theory of evolution. You might visit talk-origins.org to find just such an expert.

In short, though I attended the debate with the expectation of a lively exchange on this important topic, I was heartily disappointed. As far as I can tell, Campus Crusade for Christ merely set up a biased forum where one panelist was given a great deal of advantage over his adversaries, audience members were allowed to act like a bunch of schoolyard children at an after-school fistfight, and panelists (i.e. Mr. Hovind) were allowed to hawk their wares in the lobby like peddlers at an Amway convention. Your organization’s lack of professionalism was astounding and I sincerely hope you will consider my remarks before attempting to host any such event again in the future.

Regards,
R. Elle R. Lothlorien

Letter from Steve Mahone to debate organizer:

Dale,

On Wednesday, August 24, you sent and email to all of the debate participants that clearly spelled out the ground rules for the "Science vs. Religion?" event. Here is a direct quote from that email: "Slides and multimedia will not be used for this debate. Your verbal presentation is your only means of communication." I have to tell you that when you came to me FIVE MINUTES before "show time" and told me that you were going to accommodate Hovind and let him use his plethora of slides, I considered pulling out. Nevertheless, I decided to take a deep breath and continue with the evening anyway -- mostly out of what I considered to be good manners. I honestly think you owe me and Sam Milazzo an apology for this last minute surprise.

I would also appreciate it if you could send me a copy of the questions you asked. Perhaps my memory is a bit faulty, but I don't recall a single question that did not put evolution on the defensive from the outset. Please understand, there is NOTHING wrong with asking critical questions -- in fact, I think it was your obligation -- but why was not a single question framed in a manner that was equally critical of the claims of creationists? This was not in keeping with your verbal assurance that you'd maintain an atmosphere of balance.

I enjoyed the evening and I think it was a success, however I would appreciate your attention to my comments above.

Steven Mahone

Email from the student president of Campus Crusade for Christ at CUCS

Mr. Mahone,

Thank you very much for your constructive criticism. I want to offer
my apologies for Kent Hovind using his slides. It was an injustice I
was not directly responsible for, but I am truly sorry for how it
unfolded. Further, I would like to tell you that I felt it in no way
put you at a disadvantage, as both your arguments and Dr. Millazzo's
were moving and eloquently stated.

Thank you for your participation; I feel the debate was a success for
both sides of the argument were supported expertly. I am sorry if the
questions seemed slanted, I can assure you that was not our intent,
and you are right that some of the questions should have been directed
toward creation. I have great respect for both you and Dr. Millazzo,
it takes courage to stand up for your beliefs. I also know that you
both had the harder end of the deal, because you had to think more on
your feet than Dr. Hovind because of his experience in debating this
topic.
Thank you once again for handling the evening like a gentleman and a
scholar.

Sincerely,

Tiffany Green

Email from me to organizer:

Dale,

I was greatly disappointed to hear how you handled the debate last night. By contrast, when I was invited by Hawaii Youth for Christ to debate Christian apologist William Lane Craig in September, 2001 before 1000 people, mostly Christians, it was handled with the utmost fairness and civility. The rules were made very clear from the beginning and stuck to scrupulously. The audience was always polite and respectful. And, most importantly, the moderator was neutral. I strongly urge that you issue a public apology, available to the congregations in attendance, to Messrs, Mahone and Milazzo.

Vic Stenger
President, Colorado Citizens for Science