Talk:Duane Gish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

It's obvious that Wikipedia is bent on destroying creationists. The bias is so intense that even and article on Intelligent Design was locked up so that nobody could edit it. While it was locked up it was and still is slanted against Intelligent Design experts. This continued slant will be to Wikipedia's downfall as the move is in the works to document every wrong fact and every rebuttal that Wikipedia doesn't allow on the main page. Wiki evidently wants to make it hard for anyone to post any rebuttals especially on the ID category, relegating all past correspondence in indexed categories. In other words you have to work hard at it. Wikipedia, it seems, employs an autobot that reverts the article to how it's supposedly non-existent and non-biased editors wants it to be. Wikipedia is a fraud through and through. (JM)

Contents 1 Wording 2 Bullfrog proteins 3 Plimer 4 Tautology 5 C & Criticism 6 Dave Gorman 7 sources? 8 Gish consistently won his creation/evolution debates 9 Trivia Section

[edit] Wording

I don't think the change from: "creation science, a religious movement that seeks to challenge the validity of the theory of evolution" to "creation science, a movement that integrates science and religion together. The creation science movement seeks to challenge the validity of the theory of evolution" is warranted. A quick glance at the Wikipedia article on Creation Science which says that: "Creation science is described by its proponents as a synthesis of science and religion," clearly shows that editing was done from a creationist point of view. A better revision would be "a movement whose critics say is religiously motivated, and which seeks to challenge the validity of" is more from NPOV.

No it isn't, Ethereal. That's done from an anti-creationist POV that won't allow a description of creationism without a criticism of it. I have removed it and replaced it with something hopefully acceptable as neutral. Philip J. Rayment 15:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think your revision counts as a neutral description. While you accuse me of holding anti-creationisit POV, your revision does not take into account the fact that many critics of SciCrea consider it to be a pseudo-scientific and religiously motivated attempt to discredit evolutionary science. A NPOV revision should read something like: "Creation science is a movement whose proponents consider to be an attempt to integrate science and religion together, but whose critics consider to be a religiously motivated attempt to challenge the validity of the theory of evolution in favor of the Biblical account of creation found in the Book of Genesis."

I believe that my edit was neutral, as it was merely describing what creationary scientists believe. But your modified version is balanced, so that's okay too, except that it's not accurate. Creation science advocated don't consider it "an attempt to integrate science and religion together" (which would put them on a par), but rather to use science to study creation. But that wording is a bit ambiguous (creation can mean the original act, or the present existence), so I am changing it to "use science to study the creation" (without the emphasis). If you can think of a better term than "the creation" to refer to the act of God creating, I welcome your suggestions. But the rest of my edit should stand as a more accurate representation of creationist's beliefs. Philip J. Rayment 14:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay then, I think the end result is more balanced than the original.Ethereal 15:58, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, even though it is no longer there! In case it comes back, I would comment, however, that creation science is not just about the origin of life, but the origin of the universe, the earth, the geological record, etc., as well as the origin of life. Philip J. Rayment 12:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most of this article is about creation science and not about Gish. It should be moved to an article about it. DJ Clayworth 15:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, most of the text here is not relevant to the subject (which is deserving, just needs writing properly). Take that out and you have a stub. Someone needs to find Dr Gish's CV and monotonously record what qualifications he has, what's books he's published, what organisations he's become a member of, etc, so it's comparable to (say) Henry M. Morris. Dunc|☺ 16:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I cut this out of the article. Preserved here in case someone wants to put it elsewhere:

I think it is possible to place text you have preserved below into a sub-heading reading "Gish and Creation Science". Any objections? Ethereal 16:03, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

The greatest criticism of Gish's point of view concerning evolution is that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, a point that Charles Darwin clearly made in his book. This was called 'On the origin of species' after all, and not 'On the origin of life.' It is claimed by evolutionary biologists that whether life came about by natural or supernatural origins is of no concern for evolution and the theory of evolution.

The best known contemporary evolutionary biologists, the late Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins, refuse to debate people like Gish, by claiming that debate is not how science works. Gould and Dawkins claim that, in science, it is not important who is the best debater, it is important who can come up with a theory which best explains the (observed) facts. Gish agrees with this, however, and claims that the real reason evolutionary biologists won't debate is simply because the theory of evolution ends up looking bad. In debates, Gish always focuses primarily on one central thing, that is, discrediting evolutionary theory.

Publications of Gish and other creation scientists on the subject of creationism have normally been refused by mainstream scientific journals. Creationists claim that the reason for this is that 'mainstream science' is simply not open to alternatives to evolution. For example, Intelligent Design advocate Michael Behe emailed some science journals to ask them if they would allow him to refute some articles that were negative towards Intelligent Design in a rebuttal article. He disclosed an email that he received from an editor of a science journal (he withheld the name for privacy issues) who seemed to be open to allowing Dr. Behe a rebuttal space, but later had to deny him on the grounds of a collective board decision. In the first email to Dr. Behe, the editor seemed to agree with what creationists often say, that mainstream science was closed minded to 'non-orthodoxy.' The editor states: 'I am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy...' [1].

According to most review boards of the journals, creation articles are rejected because the publications do not contain any science. According to the creationists, they are refused because of the journal's commitment to naturalism, and refuse to consider any alternative. As a result of mainstream journals refusing to give creationists a voice, creationary scientists have established their own peer-reviewed journals that do accept publications about creation science, but these are not accepted as having much scientific value by most of the scientific community.

---

DJ Clayworth 17:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In reply to the interpolated comment above, yes I do have objections. My objection is exactly the same one that caused me to take the text out in the first place. It's not about Gish and Creations Science, it's just about Creation Science. People can read about that at creation science. If Gish has views that differ from the main body of creation scientists, or if he made and particular contribution to it, then they should be noted, but otherwise this is just duplicating information. DJ Clayworth 07:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bullfrog proteins

Some mention should be made of Gish's famous bullfrog comment, in which he claimed that if you look at some proteins, human beings appear to be more closely related to bullfrogs than other primates. When asked to provide his sources (by numerous persons over multiple years), Gish repeatedly failed to do so. It turned out that Gish made his statement based on a misunderstanding of a joking comment he heard at a conference. He has never corrected or admitted his error. This is described in Bob Schadewald's "Scientific Creationism and Error" which may be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html (There is also other good Gish-related material in the sidebar on that page)

I compare Schadewald's account to Gish's account here: http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/bfrog2.htm

My review of Gish's book answering his critics also is a source of some Gish-related material: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/gishreview.html Lippard 00:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plimer

Brian0918, even the talk origins page you gave says, "Note that Plimer, in my opinion, was overly aggressive and mean-spirited in this debate. I don't think that he conducted himself well during much of the debate." It seems like a bad idea to take a debate where the evolutionist used false and/or abusive statements such that even several other evolutionists objected and claim it as a victory. Why don't you use the Saladin debate instead? Anyways, I can't find the Plimer debate's transcript online. It would be nice to use a debate that can actually be referenced and that readers can look at for themselves. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 03:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

And the very next sentence says "However, in my opinion he thrashed Gish....", so, according to that reference, it is correct. -- BRIAN0918  12:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of what the next sentence say; I just think that since basically everyone I can find who's personally viewed the debate thinks that Plimer behaved very poorly, this is probably a bad example to use. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 22:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I viewed it, and Plimer hardly had anything but abusive ad hominem. He made almost no positive case for his side. One of his main charge was that Gish lied repeatedly in one of his old booklets, which was really only one "lie" repeated about something that had been superseded after Gish wrote. And even Plimer's allegedly devasting argument about the "theory of electricity", donning insulating gloves etc. was easily and dismissively brushed aside by Gish and rejected by the audience.220.245.180.130 04:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a misdescription about the alleged "lie"—Gish made a false statement in a pamphlet about the existence of Precambrian fossils (if I recall correctly); Gish's defense was that his statement was true to the best of his knowledge at the time he made it, to which Plimer responded pointing out that the booklet with the same false statement was still being sold at the very venue. Gish does not often correct himself, as pointed out in the Joyce Arthur piece. I agree overall about Plimer's poor performance. Gish has probably won his debates more often than he has lost, with some notable exceptions being his two debates with Kenneth Saladin and his debate with Philip Kitcher at the University of Minnesota. Lippard 00:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Lippard, with Plimer's propensity to lie for his cause, as you have documented yourself, why should we believe that Plimer picked up this booklet when he said he did? And even if he did, it's ridiculous to accuse Gish of lying so many times when it was one false statement repeated, and one that Gish had corrected in his more serious books. If every book with a mistake were withdrawn all around the world, there would be nothing left! BTW, Gish in his book claims that Kitcher used a diagram of purported fossil intermediates from Kenneth Miller, without mentioning that some were hypothetical. 58.162.245.111 13:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Gish's record is no better than Plimer's, as has been amply documented by many people including Chris McGowan, Rich Trott, Bob Schadewald, Joyce Arthur, and myself.

The booklet was (and perhaps still is) being sold by the ICR, and there were plenty of other witnesses to the booklet's being sold there at the event, as well as afterward (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html, already referenced in this Wikipedia article). I haven't researched Gish's specific rebuttal claim about Kitcher's diagram, but Gish's discussions of the reptile-to-mammal fossil record are extremely inaccurate; see, e.g., http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm Lippard 03:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It is the height of arrogance simply to claim, "Plimer beat Gish". This is POV. It is NPOV to cite contemporary reports from various angles. 220.245.180.130 04:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tautology

This sentence seems to be a tautology, and to contain another:

"Another is creationists "loading" the audience with supporters, leading to a tendency for the audience to have pre-conceived beliefs in favor of creationism."

I don't find it surprising that creationist supporters have "pre-conceived beliefs" (and what are beliefs if not pre-conceived?) in favour of creationism.

This doesn't seem to "unfairly slant the debate" either, as the audience doesn't determine the quality of arguments on show.

Finally, this leaves only one example of the "number of factors"

Can someone come up with something better on the debates, or perhaps remove the reference?

[edit] C & Criticism

User:Arbusto, the section you added is as long as the rest of the article put together. Wouldn't it be enough to provide a link to talk.origins and add a sentence briefly outlining his arguments they they refute? Ashmoo 03:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that is the same as a POV Fork. A fuller explanation of WHAT exactly is criticized is more important than just simply noting a criticism. If you have a problem with the length expand the biography instead of removing the criticism. Arbusto 01:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm no fan of creationists, so this isn't a POV thing. My problem is that the section quotes large amounts of a single article. Most of Trott's rebuttals come down to pointing to evidence that Gish claims doesn't exist. It seems to me to be overkill to detail individual claims unless Gish is famous for making that specific claim. The reader can always follow the link if they are interested.

Remember, the section shouldn't seek to rebut Gish's arguments, but report on rebuttals of his arguments, which is a slightly different thing.

Lastly, all the external links in the section go to the same place, are they all needed?

I'm going to hold off of doing any editing to the section. But please consider what I've said. Regards, Ashmoo 02:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You being a fan or not is beside the point. Whether your intention is a POV fork or not, that is what it becomes. If you want to trim the section, I have problem, but particulars are important and should be left in where needed. For example, you completely removed Gish's argument about Australopithecus and the criticism and experts surrounding it.

The links may go to same domain, but are written by different scholars in different fields with different topics. They should stay. Arbusto 03:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please check the links, on my machine they all go to the top of the same page (Richard Trott Critiques Duane Gish's Presentation at Rutgers University) [2]. Ashmoo 03:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to the external links in general. As for the criticism of Trott, you can lose it in obvious cases, but where there is a quote, the source should be given even if redundant. Arbusto 06:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read the article on Wikipedia:Content_forking before accusing me of it. What I'm proposing has nothing to do with POV forking. I'm only concerned about quoting large amounts of text from a single article. (Please don't read this as sarcasm, I honestly think we may be using different definitions of POV forking) Ashmoo 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I posted "POV fork," but I just meant the equivlent of a content fork. That is, when the reader is sent to another location to read the material rather than in the article. If you want it trimmed feel free to make changes, but your edits took so much information out that Trott's criticisms were too vague to be informative. Arbusto 06:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

But by 'informative' don't you mean 'enough information to show that Gish is wrong and Trott is right'? The biggest problem is, I think, is that Gish uses the famous 'Gish gallop' so any 'full' description of criticism is going to have to detail the hundreds of things he has claimed and the hundreds of rebuttals.

I think the best solution would be to detail one fo Trott's rebuttals, say, the Triceratops one, to give the reader a feel for the style of his criticisms and then just mention the rest in a single sentence with a link. What do you think? Regards, Ashmoo 07:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does the quantity matter? Is that your view or wikipedia policy that only one criticism per scholar can be posted on a controversial creationist? Arbusto 18:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not so much the quantity. I think an encyc. should be providing a summary of an author's arguments, not presenting the details of their actual argument with multiple examples. Ashmoo 01:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Gorman

Dr Gish appears in Dave Gorman's Googlewhack Adventure, when he meets him as he is a Googlewhack. I'm too busy at the moment and am not sure where to insert that information, but it should be there somewhere. — Gary Kirk | ^talk! 13:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sources?

Is there a source for the Sydney debate in section 3? Since the account given does seem to have a slight POV, at least it should be sourced and , perhaps, a few adjectives removed, such as "famous". I particularly ask for a source because thre seems to be something missing, as I cannot decipher "Plimer's obtaining of a live electrical current"

Ditto for the other parts of section 3.

"Opponents object" absolutely needs a source: is this being asserted for opinions of Gish in contrast to opinions about other creationists, or are the opponents characterizing his arguments as a representative creationist argument.

In section 2, are the quotations based on a transcript? or a recording? (or, perhaps, memory?)

Are perhaps the opponents, one person in one book? Again, are these arguements being refuted as peculiar to Gish? Is he perhaps the first creationist to have discussed the Neaderthal and Australopitecus material? Or is it a common argument?

And, this is undoubtedly be my fault, but I do not understand the last section. Is it saying that in the book Gorman met Gish? or in real-life? If it is after. not in, the book, a source is needed.

And in the bio, if he is alive, is he still working for the ICR?

I wrrte as one who wishes evolutionists would write NPOV articles. There is no point in abuse, and no need to show bias. DGG 06:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added some on-line sources for the 'Gish Gallop' which is a well established phrase amongst anti-creationists. I will try to get more respectable sources.

I believe the 'live electrical current' was a bare electric cable which Plimer asked Gish to hold. I'm pretty sure the encounter is detailed in Plimer's 'Telling Lies for God'. I'll try to find it and clarify the sentence.

In section 2, I believe all the quotations are from the talk.origins article that is quoted a number of times in the section. Ashmoo 23:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the debate between Sidney Fox and Duane Gish, the quotation from Sidney Fox used to establish Gish's scientific credentials is taken badly out of context and needs to be fixed because as it is it completely misrepresents Fox's intellectual orientation. Sidney W. Fox was what is usually called an atheist in the strongest sense of rejecting any notion of deity, supernatural, etc... He completely rejected creationism, intelligent design, and related points of view, although he felt it important to try to engage in dialogue with their proponents, particularl those who employed putatively scientific arguments. Fox was a competent professional protein chemist.

In general Fox's point of view vis-a-vis Gish was clear - he tried to engage in civil debate with Gish on the merits of the claims presented, and he agreed with Gish about very few of the claims Gish made. Fox was also clear to distinguish between scientific credentials and success in doing science.

The unsourced quotation of Fox is an incorrect paraphrase of a passage from page 46 of Fox's book `The Emergence of Life' published by Basic Books in 1988. A complete citation is:

The Emergence of Life. Darwinian Evolution from the Inside. Sidney W. Fox Basic Books, New York. ix + 208p. ISBN: 0-465-01925-0. 1988.

This book was reviewed by Stanley N. Salthe in The Quarterly Review of Biology. Vol. 64, No. 3 (Sep., 1989), pp. 343-344.

Fox worked throughout his life to counter the claims made by all who propose what he called `divine action' as a mechanism for observed properties of organisms or chemical systems. While he tried to show his intellectual adversaries respect (perhaps they would not all agree with this), he also would be offended to see his words used to establish Gish as an authority, because he most definitely did not consider Gish an authority. To put it another way. In the book cited above Fox presented Gish's scientific credentials in order to establish why he should be taken seriously as an authority, and to emphasize the importance of debunking the claims that Gish made. The full quotation is

`Duane Gish has very strong scientific credentials. As a biochemist, he has synthesized peptides, compounds between amino acids and proteins in size. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeleley. He has been a coauthor of a number of outstanding publications in peptide chemistry. This background coupled with critical perceptions about evolution, which appear to be more accurate than those of many neo-Darwinists, and excellent debating skills have made him a leader in the public contest between evolutionists and creationists.

Morris and Gish do deserve attention in a scientific framework for their arguments that evolution based on a random context is indefensible. This one criticism by them is sound, even though they wish to overcome it by introducing the determinism evident in modern living forms; they do this by invoking divine action.'

On the next page he wrote 'A focus on this group's criticism of prebiotic proteins shows in tandem three especially false statements ...'

In order to properly parse everything Fox wrote it is necessary to understand Fox's own intellectual pecadillos, something for which this is not an appropriate forum. However, whatever the scientific merits of Fox's arguments or Gish's arguments, it is wrong in spirit to cite Fox's words as testimony in support of Gish as a scientist. To say that someone has scientific credentials is not to say that that someone is a scientist, and Fox certainly meant to make such a distinction. (an unsigned comment by User:Royalturkey at 09:34, 7 October 2006)

Fox's letter entitled `Creationism, the Random Hypothesis, and Experiments' and appearing in Science. New Series, Vol. 213, No. 4505 (Jul., 1981), p. 290, which specifically mentions Gish's work, will, if carefully read, reinforce the argument presented in the previous paragraphs.

[edit] Gish consistently won his creation/evolution debates

Gish consistently won his creation/evolution debates. Even a evolutionary scientists admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationist tend to win" the creation/evolution debates. [3][4] Also, Dr. Henry Morris reported that Duane Gish, who has had over 300 formal debates, “at least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.” [5] ken 05:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Right, random webpages and a fellow creationist are such great references. And no, just because creationists tend to win doesn't mean Gish generally wins. I've removed the statement. JoshuaZ 05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC

What is so random about the webpages? That is a spurious comment. Secondly, Gish was the most prolific debator in the creation/evolution debates so the Wall Street Journal article has some import. ken 05:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

If the WSJ journal article doesn't specifically mention Gish, it doesn't belong in this article. Ashmoo 04:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The webpage is random in the sense that it is a personal webpage and thus fails WP:RS. JoshuaZ 05:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia Section

I see no reason why the information necessarily needs to be deleted, though if you wanted to tag it for one violation or another, you probably wouldn't have much trouble. Regardless, I've put the section back, as the reason you gave for blanking it didn't hold- trivia sections in articles aren't uncommon. I appreciate the input- I just don't want the removal of "Trivia" sections on the basis that "trivia" doesn't necessarily belong on Wikipedia to become a common practice. Those sections can be interesting, informative and useful to researchers. Don't want to set a bad precedent, but feel free to pursue the same end via different means. Moralis 05:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Big chunks appear to have been removed by an editor who has a long history of basically unproductive behavior on page after page, kdbuffalo. People might want to look carefully at how he has altered the article. I have heard Dr. Gish speak on a number of occasions, and there is very little that he says that is of substantive or scientific merit.--ReasonIsBest 05:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've just openedn an RfC on his actions which can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kdbuffalo 2. JoshuaZ 05:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)