WLC and Evolution derail

[whag]

I don't know how many times I've heard from skeptics that Dr. William Lane Craig wins his debates because he "Gish-Gallops". That is, that he takes on the technique of recently passed biochemist and YEC advocate Duane Gish, and throws out as much misinformation as possible to confound his opponents in a strange debate tactic that leaves his debate partners in a tizzy by information overload. It's such a well known accusation thrown at Dr. Craig that he is prominently mentioned on the "rational wiki" as one of the "Abusers of this technique"

Watching some of Dr. Craig's older videos I was fascinated by how consistent he's been in the last 20-25 years. He has pretty much repeated the exact same talking points throughout his career. Practically verbatim. There is almost no excuse whatsoever to lay this fallacy of Gish-Gallop on Dr. Craig. None at all. All one would need to do to debate Dr. Craig effectively is watch any number of his debates and counter those arguments that he routinely uses over the course of 2 and a half decades. In fact, as I understand it, finally one debate opponent did just that in Kevin Scharp,. Upon a miscommunication with the Veritas Forum, Dr. Craig assumed he was going to get into a laid back, conversational debate. He was not at all expecting Scharp to do his homework, but found to his surprise that professor Scharp actually did research on all of his online debates and posed a formidable opponent. Fascinating stuff.

For the benefit of those who assume that Dr. Craig is still guilty of this fallacy, I present two videos. This thread isn't to debate the topics he brings up, but to simply put to rest that Dr. Craig throws out too much information for his opponents to counter. Clearly, if the same debate opponent throws out the same 6 or so arguments over almost 30 years, no matter the debate, he cannot reasonably be accused of "Gish-Galloping". That's all I intend to prove here. Say what you want about his methods, but he is not guilty of this one particular fallacy.

Debate against Frank Zindler 1993.

Debate against Lewis Wolpert 2007

You're responding to a few nameless people who said that Craig's general theistic apologetic presentation is too dense with arguments that it can't be responded to. Maybe linking to those would be good.

I find Craig's scientific portion to be at tension with his Gishy anti-evo belief, which cancels out a lot of his evangelistic effort because it just creates confusion. Here, he subtly casts doubt on evolution to confuse the reader when he knows that it's not up to debate at all within biology that human beings evolved from ancient primates. That's the specific controversy, not the details of the mechanisms.

He's kinda shady when he's only addressing the choir. He stays clear of the anti-evo stuff in all his debates, though. That's interesting.

[rogue06]

You're responding to a few nameless people who said that Craig's general theistic apologetic presentation is too dense with arguments that it can't be responded to. Maybe linking to those would be good.

I find Craig's scientific portion to be at tension with his Gishy anti-evo belief, which cancels out a lot of his evangelistic effort because it just creates confusion. Here, he subtly casts doubt on evolution to confuse the reader when he knows that it's not up to debate at all within biology that human beings evolved from ancient primates. That's the specific controversy, not the details of the mechanisms.

He's kinda shady when he's only addressing the choir. He stays clear of the anti-evo stuff in all his debates, though. That's interesting.

FWICT, Craig is essentially agnostic toward evolution (it isn't something he's really concerned with) and holds that it isn't a threat to Christianity. OTOH, he finds folks like the current grand poobah of the YEC movement, Ken Ham, to be an embarrassment to Christianity. In an interview which can be heard here on Youtube (so anyone can hear for himself that these remarks are not taken out of context -- quote mined) Craig made the following statement at about the 1 minute 50 second mark:

[Adrift]

FWICT, Craig is essentially agnostic toward evolution (it isn't something he's really concerned with) and holds that it isn't a threat to Christianity. OTOH, he finds folks like the current grand poobah of the YEC movement, Ken Ham, to be an embarrassment to Christianity. In an interview which can be heard here on Youtube (so anyone can hear for himself that these remarks are not taken out of context -- quote mined) Craig made the following statement at about the 1 minute 50 second mark:

Exactly. Contrary to whag's claim, Dr. Craig has never shied from describing his personal view on natural evolution in his debates. In fact, he mentions his relatively skeptical, but generally agnostic approach to the subject in both of the debates I posted in the OP (again, these are 25 years apart). One of his repeated statements when evolution comes up in debate is that, because he is a theist, he is free to be open minded about the topic, accept evolution or explore various other avenues, while the non-theist is locked into natural evolution because "it's the only game in town".

I recognize that popular Christians and their views on evolution is one of whag's favorite hobby-horses here, but Craig's views on evolution is not the topic of the thread. It's certainly not a topic he spends much time discussing in debate or in his written work (though, as mentioned, he doesn't shy away from). So in the interest of keeping the thread on track, I suggest if whag would like to start yet another thread on Craig and evolution, he do it elsewhere. This thread is about the accusation that Dr. Craig is guilty of the Gish Gallop debate technique. I did not have any particular accuser in mind when I created this thread, but it is a popular accusation, and, as I mentioned in the OP, it's common enough that "Rational Wiki" claims he's an abuser of it. whag, if you're unfamiliar with this accusation against Dr. Craig, then this thread is not for your benefit. You're free to leave.

[whag]

FWICT, Craig is essentially agnostic toward evolution (it isn't something he's really concerned with) and holds that it isn't a threat to Christianity. OTOH, he finds folks like the current grand poobah of the YEC movement, Ken Ham, to be an embarrassment to Christianity. In an interview which can be heard here on Youtube (so anyone can hear for himself that these remarks are not taken out of context -- quote mined) Craig made the following statement at about the 1 minute 50 second mark:

No one said that he's YEC but anti-evo. Craig's on the board of the Discovery Institute, which isn't known for being evolution agnostic.

IDers believe something just as embarassing YEC. There is no doubt that life evolved and no doubt that we are primates. He's only agnostic because of his religious beliefs but pretends he's only skeptical because the theory is wonky. That's what I mean by shady.

[Rational Gaze]

No one said that he's YEC but anti-evo. Craig's on the board of the Discovery Institute, which isn't known for being evolution agnostic.

IDers believe something just as embarassing YEC. There is no doubt that life evolved and no doubt that we are primates. He's only agnostic because of his religious beliefs but pretends he's only skeptical because the theory is wonky. That's what I mean by shady.

Those are some mighty fine straws you're grasping at, there.

[whag]

Those are some mighty fine straws you're grasping at, there.

No, it's legitimate to bring up his skepticism of evolution in light of epistemology.

[rogue06]

No one said that he's YEC but anti-evo. Craig's on the board of the Discovery Institute, which isn't known for being evolution agnostic.

Michael J. Behe is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture who in recent years has been increasingly accepting of various aspects of evolutionary theory (such as common descent^[1]) to the point that some ID supports are describing him as being a theistic evolutionist.

His biggest obstacle are random mutations which he seems to accept saying that species can be explained by purely natural processes like "random mutations, natural selection, and common descent" but holds that they are still somehow directed by God -- which is essentially a theistic evolutionist position -- and may not be an adequate explanation at higher taxonomic levels.

But all of this is diverging from the topic of whether or not WLC engages in Gish Gallop tactics during debates.















1. As can be seen in his The Edge of Evolution

[Rational Gaze]

No, it's legitimate to bring up his skepticism of evolution in light of epistemology.

In philosophy, this is called 'poisoning the well'. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

[One Bad Pig]

No one said that he's YEC but anti-evo. Craig's on the board of the Discovery Institute, which isn't known for being evolution agnostic.

IDers believe something just as embarassing YEC. There is no doubt that life evolved and no doubt that we are primates. He's only agnostic because of his religious beliefs but pretends he's only skeptical because the theory is wonky. That's what I mean by shady.

This is not the topic of this thread, as Adrift has already pointed out to you once. Stick to the topic or leave.

[Rational Gaze]

This is not the topic this thread, as Adrift has already pointed out to you once. Stick to the topic or leave.

It's kind of ironic that whag is changing the subject in a thread about whether or not WLC is guilty of the gish-gallop, which involves changing the subject as much as possible. As the saying goes, the closed mouth gathers no foot.

[whag]

It's kind of ironic that whag is changing the subject in a thread about whether or not WLC is guilty of the gish-gallop, which involves changing the subject as much as possible. As the saying goes, the closed mouth gathers no foot.

As I never claimed he galloped, and no one here has challenged the OP, it's fair to bring it up. It's about as on topic as Adrift accusing me of enacting violent mob mentality here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post353012

The mods can break this off into another thread.

[whag]

Michael J. Behe is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture who in recent years has been increasingly accepting of various aspects of evolutionary theory (such as common descent^[1]) to the point that some ID supports are describing him as being a theistic evolutionist.

His biggest obstacle are random mutations which he seems to accept saying that species can be explained by purely natural processes like "random mutations, natural selection, and common descent" but holds that they are still somehow directed by God -- which is essentially a theistic evolutionist position -- and may not be an adequate explanation at higher taxonomic levels.

But all of this is diverging from the topic of whether or not WLC engages in Gish Gallop tactics during debates.















1. As can be seen in his The Edge of Evolution

It doesn't matter that Behe has changed his mind. The site advertises "Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis." Guys like Meyers and Dembski continue to be embarrassments to Christians by being skeptical that human beings evolved from primates. That's the main issue: their religious objection isn't about minor points. That's not what Dover was about. Rather, their sole motivation is to legitimicize Christian skepticism of human origins.

[whag]

It bears repeating that the Discovery Institute specifically began as a way to cast doubt on the evidence that human beings are primates. Initially, it wanted to promote the idea that species were created fully formed.

That Behe has come around to change his mind on that is immaterial. DI still exists solely to introduce doubt that life, especially human beings, evolved. That hardly makes them "evolution agnostic." Moreover, "evolution agnostic" isn't a dignified epistemic view to hold given the evidence for life's development.

[rogue06]

It bears repeating that the Discovery Institute specifically began as a way to cast doubt on the evidence that human beings are primates. Initially, it wanted to promote the idea that species were created fully formed.

That Behe has come around to change his mind on that is immaterial. DI still exists solely to introduce doubt that life, especially human beings, evolved. That hardly makes them "evolution agnostic." Moreover, "evolution agnostic" isn't a dignified epistemic view to hold given the evidence for life's development.

Behe is one of the shining stars of the Discover Institute. If he is turning into a Theistic Evolutionist right in front of them and yet they remain silent, what does that say about the DI?

Before you answer, keep in mind that when the American Scientific Affiliation was originally founded in 1941 one of its primary reasons to exist was for conservative Christian scientists to have a place where they could complain about evolution, but over the years they went from a fairly strict creationist POV, to supporting progressive creationism to now fully accepting a theistic evolutionist view.

[whag]

Behe is one of the shining stars of the Discover Institute. If he is turning into a Theistic Evolutionist right in front of them and yet they remain silent, what does that say about the DI?

Before you answer, keep in mind that when the American Scientific Affiliation was originally founded in 1941 one of its primary reasons to exist was for conservative Christian scientists to have a place where they could complain about evolution, but over the years they went from a fairly strict creationist POV, to supporting progressive creationism to now fully accepting a theistic evolutionist view.

I recognize it's a rhetorical question, but since you implied the answer, I'll respond. I don't think DI will do what the American Scientific Affiliation did. You know how entrenched Meyers is, and I'm sure you know Dembski pretty much recanted his OEC view. Dembski was the sort who mocked Judge Jones' decision with a cartoon and flatulence samples. His recantation of his anti-evo views isn't likely to come.

It might help if Behe admitted his mistakes and spoke out against the anti-evo entrenched within DI. Did he issue a PR or make an announcement of some kind?