SI M-J 2007 pgs 3/28/07 10:35 AM Page 63

FORUM

Debating Creationists I was asked by the Anthropology Club at Long Beach City College to debate a scientist from the Discovery Institute regarding intelligent design. These were my opening remarks.

CHARLES L. RULON

want to be up front with The creationists know this and most all of you today. I have are excellent debaters, now with impres- Ivery mixed feelings about sive and entertaining PowerPoint being here—about debating someone presentations. In fact, several who still rejects the established fact of our Christian fundamentalist col- biological evolution. Let me say that again. leges are now churning out Evolution—meaning that we are ancient lawyers and other gradu- cousins of apes and whales and starfish— ates who are highly skilled is a scientifically settled fact, as much so as in debating and in the fact that our sun gives off heat. Thus, defending conservative there’s something surreal about this Christian “science.” debate. A second reason for So, why am I here? Have I actually not debating is that deluded myself into thinking that I have there is no such thing as some silver bullet argu- bad publicity for the ments to convert the creationists. If a scientist creationists in today’s debates, it’s “proof” that audience? Hardly, as I a scientific controversy discovered from decades of actually exists. If he de- frustrating personal experi- clines, it’s “proof” that evolutionists are ences. The only way creationists running scared. have been defeated, so far, from intro- Let’s not kid ourselves. Regardless of ducing their anti-evolution beliefs into schools. That’s why I agreed to debate superficial scientific appearances, intelli- public school science classes has been in today. Even so, there are excellent rea- gent design was fabricated by a handful court cases where their phony science has sons for science educators to not debate of Christian apologists with the mission been exposed. the anti-evolutionists. of discrediting evolution and of bring- So, again, why am I here today? First, in science’s search for truth, it’s ing conservative Christian values into Because I believe that science educators the rigorous application of the scientific have a duty to defend the scientific method that counts, not oratory skills. Yet, Charles L. Rulon is a professor emeritus of method from irrational attacks. I also repeatedly, the overwhelming majority of Long Beach City College, where he taught feel a moral obligation toward those in debates before public audiences are won in the Life Sciences Department for thirty- the audience who are still undecided— not by the actual scientific content but by four years. He has spent the last four those whose minds haven’t already been the emotional rapport, public speaking decades lecturing and writing on the sub- snapped shut by anti-evolution religious skills, likeability, and believed authority of jects of evolution, creationism, science and dogmas. I feel strongly that the fake sci- the debaters. How could it be otherwise, religion, the Christian Right, pseudo- ence of the creationists must not be given the audience’s lack of expertise in science, abortion, and environmental imposed on captive students in our public being able to recognize fake science? issues.

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER May / June 2007 63 SI M-J 2007 pgs 3/28/07 10:35 AM Page 64

FORUM

public school classrooms. The scientific evidence on all sides. To require science beliefs that can seriously interfere with evidence for evolution is ultimately teachers to “teach the controversy,” to rational, compassionate, and scientifi- irrelevant to the faithful, since their give equal time to evolution and ID is, cally informed decisions related to other “truths” come straight from God. in essence, to require teachers to lie to vitally important areas such as emer- A third reason for not debating today their students. Unfortunately, this gency contraceptive pills, the abortion is that creationists can churn out more appeal for equal time has been an effect- pill, gay rights, death with dignity, and scientific misinformation in thirty min- ive propaganda tool for the creationists overpopulation. utes than I could possibly refute in a for decades. Many powerful politicians And then there’s the extremely week, as I’ve personally discovered. continue to support these efforts. scary Armageddon theology belief cur- Creationists know that the student audi- A fifth reason for not debating creation- rently held by millions of Americans. ence does not have the necessary exper- ists is that these debates are also publicity After all, why be concerned about tise in evolutionary biology, historical stunts to increase the membership of destroying our planet’s life-support geology, anthropology, and paleontol- Christian clubs on campuses. Such clubs systems when the destruction of the ogy to be able to separate out scientific- now number in the tens of thousands. Most world is already inevitable as foretold ally solid evidence from half-truths, are spreading falsehoods regarding evolu- in Scripture? poor logic, outdated references, mis- tion, thus creating serious obstacles to the Today the is being con- leading quotations, selective data, and ongoing science education of students. fronted with large numbers of scientifi- outright falsehoods. Remember, anti-evolutionists are also trying cally ignorant, politically active A fourth reason for not debating cre- to convince students to reject large chunks Christians who are locked into ultra-reli- ationists is that in debates equal time is of well-established physics, chemistry, gious, anti-scientific views and who want given to both sides. Yet, the scientific astronomy, anthropology, and geology. to force these views on others through method is not about equal time but To make matters worse, most of our elected officials, our courts, and our about the rigorous evaluation of all the these Christian clubs also hold religious schools. That’s why I’m here today. ! The Future of

September 20–22, 2007 • Center for Inquiry/Transnational, Amherst, N.Y. Cosponsored by the Center for Inquiry/Transnational and the University at Buffalo Department, with support from the C.S. Peirce Professorship in , the Marvin Farber Memorial Fund, and the George F. and Celeste Hourani Memorial Fund Naturalism has achieved a dominant place on the world’s intellectual scene, elevated by science’s spectacular achievements. The philo- sophical effort to grapple with the wider implications of the scientific worldview must keep pace with science’s ceaseless advances. Philosophical naturalism must understand both the power and limitations of scientific methodology. Can science realistically describe nature’s workings, progressively expand our knowledge through intellectual revolutions, integrate the human being into nature, and help guide the quest for improving the human condition? The future of naturalism will ultimately depend on the answers to such ques- tions, and this conference on The Future of Naturalism brings together many leading thinkers who are working on them. Speakers will discuss many crucial topics, including science’s claims to know reality, how mind and experience might fit into nature, the implications of naturalism for ethics and law, the conflicts between religion and naturalism, and the varieties of naturalism. Scheduled speakers John Peter Anton (University of South Florida), Akeel Bilgrami (Columbia University), Arthur Caplan (University of Pennsylvania), Randall Dipert (University at Buffalo), Paul Draper (Purdue University), Owen Flanagan (Duke University), Ronald Giere (University of Minnesota), James Gouinlock (Emory University), Adolf Grünbaum (University of Pittsburgh), Terry Horgan (University of Arizona), Hilary Kornblith (University of Massachusetts), Paul Kurtz (Center for Inquiry), John Lachs (Vanderbilt University), (University of Texas), Isaac Levi (Columbia University), Joseph Margolis (Temple University), Lynn Hankinson Nelson (University of Washington), Laura Purdy (Wells College), Nicholas Rescher (University of Pittsburgh), David Rosenthal (City University of ), John Ryder (State University of New York), Charlene Haddock Seigfried (Purdue University), Harvey Siegel (University of Miami), John E. Smith (Yale University), Ernest Sosa (Brown University), Victor J. Stenger (University of Hawaii), Michael Tye (University of Texas) Visit the conference’s Web site at www.naturalisms.org/2007 For more about the CFI’s Naturalism Research Project and other upcoming events, see www.centerforinquiry.net/research.

64 Volume 31, Issue 3 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER