Donate -or- Patronize our Creation Science Store

Evolutionists don't accept Walt Brown's debate challenge (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Jump to: navigation, search
Response Article
This article (Evolutionists don't accept Walt Brown's debate challenge (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Claim CA342:

A standing offer exists for a written debate between Walt Brown and an evolutionist, the debate to be published later. In over fifteen years, no evolutionist has accepted this offer.


CreationWiki response:

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1. Several aspects of Brown's twenty-two requirements may make his debate unattractive. The editor for the debate (who must be qualified, willing, and impartial) would be very difficult to find.

Brown's only qualification for the editor is for him to be "associated with a large publisher” and “have no strong opinions on the creation/evolution issue".

If finding such a publisher would be difficult, it is only because of the nature of the problem. If this is a problem then instead of being critical why not propose an alternative?

Brown requires that his challenger must have a PhD, for no good reason.

Brown does have a good reason. The reason is that, should the challenger lose the debate, his lack of credentials could not be used as an excuse.

He stipulates that he will not allow theology into the debate, despite the fact that creationism is nothing but theology and that Brown himself uses theology as the basis for his conclusions.

First of all there is more to creationism than theology. There is considerable scientific support but Talk Origins and other Evolutionists refuse to acknowledge it as such.

Brown's rule against using theology only shows he can adequately defend his conclusions on science alone.

2. People have attempted to debate Walt Brown, but Brown refuses.
  • Joe Meert signed Brown's contract in 1996. He proposed (in accordance with the contract terms) that evidence regarding a global flood be a topic for discussion within the debate. Brown has steadfastly refused to debate Meert.

What Talk Origins conveniently omits is that Joe Meert was insisting on including theology, which is not to be allowed. So Meert was unwilling to follow the rules.

3 Brown himself refuses to debate in the proper venue for deciding scientific questions: scientific conferences and peer-reviewed literature.

Under ideal circumstances this would be true, but there are no scientific conferences or peer-reviewed journals that are truly objective on the topic of origins. Furthermore, neither side thinks they would get a fair hearing in the other side’s scientific conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

See Also

Personal tools