Saladin-Gish Debate III
16 April 2001
Georgia College & State University
(Compiled and annotated by Ken Saladin)
Of an estimated 140 people who remained through the entire debate, 32 submitted a
ballot and comment form. All ballots were anonymous. Two of them submitted a vote but
made no comments, 2 of them offered comments but no vote, and the other 28 submitted
both a vote and comments.
The comments below are divided by topic, so the same person may have submitted
comments that I divided into more than one of the following categories. The number
indicated by < > at the end identifies the respondent (e.g., any comments marked “<5>”
in this list are by the same person). A key at the end indicates how each of these people
voted.
Debate Score
We scored ballots in this debate the same way we did in the student Honors Seminar
debates: the debater received 1 point for each ballot marked “won marginally” and 2
points for each ballot marked “won decisively.”
By votes cast: Gish 4, Saladin 26
By points awarded: Gish 7, Saladin 45
Audience Comments
These are transcribed from the ballots with no omissions or changes except occasional
punctuation, spelling, or other minor corrections for sense. Italicized words are words
that the respondent had underlined. A few explanatory notes are given in [ ] brackets;
everything else is as written by the respondent. Readers should not assume that the
comments accurately reflect what either Dr. Gish or I said; some spectators obviously
misunderstood some of our statements.
For any further explanation, questions, or comments, you may write to Ken Saladin
<ksaladin@alltel.net> or Duane Gish <dgish@icr.org>.
USE OF QUOTED OPINIONS VS. EVIDENCE
[Dr. Gish’s presentation consisted mostly of showing overhead transparencies of
literature quotes that he says discredit evolution. I argued that a case should be supported
by evidence from nature, not by merely quoting other people’s opinions, and that despite
what Dr. Gish says, a quote is not evidence.]
Rhetorical questions aren’t effective because I don’t know the answer. But I do agree that
at times, quotes can be effective. ...[Dr. Gish used] great quotes out of books to support
case -- colorful slides too. But it hasn’t convinced me yet. A little too aggressive. <29>
Dr. Gish only used “quotes” to try and prove his points. I never once heard a solid fact
from him proving creationism. Only points I heard were ones defending creationism. Dr.
Saladin, on the other hand, used solid facts to teach and prove evolution. He used more
graphics and that made it easier to understand and side with his point of view, as I saw
these facts before my eyes. <26>
Dr. Gish skillfully avoided answering numerous questions. Dr. Gish also used quotations
to discredit the case for evolution but failed to provide any evidence for the case for
creation. <28>
Dr. Gish seemed to spend a lot of his time refuting evolution. Evolution is not in question
here. He didn’t seem to present much evidence as to why scientific creationism should be
taught in class. ... Dr. Saladin presented a strong case with a lot of factual evidence. For
this reason, I’d have to say he won the debate. <7>
[Dr. Gish] quoted others too much. Did not give any scientific evidence for creationism
and did not prove the evolution wrong. <11>
I found Dr. Gish’s quotes overexaggerated and meaningless at certain points. He had
some good points, but didn’t present enough evidence. Dr. Saladin (in my opinion) had
much more evidence on the entire subject. <13>
I liked Saladin’s use of examples rather than simply quotes. <6>
Both sides presented clear and persuasive arguments. However I felt like Dr. Gish spent a
great deal of his time quoting literature. Dr. Saladin rightly pointed this out. Dr. Gish
would have had to prove that the evidence for special creation is superior (he needed to
tip the scale). Dr. Gish didn’t present enough convincing evidence that both disproved
evolution and overwhelmingly supported special creation.<8>
Dr. Gish also relied way too heavily on quotes out of context by prominent evolutionists.
<18>
[Dr. Gish] did not present much evidence and never presented any quote within its
context where it was written as Dr. Saladin did. <25> [I think the last comment is a
reference to the fact that when Gish quoted something, he had retyped the passage and
made a transparency of his own design; when I quoted creationist literature, I showed a
photograph of the original page, so the context of the quote could usually be seen.]
The problem with Dr. Gish is that he failed to give evidence of how creationism is true. I
have been to seminars on the subject of creationism and heard speakers give marvelous
evidence that the flood did happen, and give many of the “thousands” of examples to
support creationism. Dr. Gish did a poor job of representing the creationists. I think he
should have focused on how creationism is another belief of how the world came to be,
instead of focusing on arguing evolution. Dr. Gish needs to present specific examples and
not just general facts and quotes. I have heard evangelists give more scientific proposals
than what I heard from the “scientist” Dr. Gish. <20>
I have been to creation conferences and Dr. Gish mentioned nothing the other people had
about creationism. <10>
I was very disappointed in Dr. Gish’s presentation. Dr. Gish spent an hour doing nothing
but showing quotes from evolutionists saying they were wrong. I was looking forward to
hearing all about evolution and creation. All I heard about was evolution as a science and
then why evolution was not real. The only evidence Dr. Gish used was the fossils. He
never talked about creation, what it is, what the beliefs are, how it is a science, and
evidence that shows what the Bible says is true. <10>
Dr. Saladin presented much more credible, logically based evidence for his point. Dr.
Gish never got off his point to present scientific evidence that was not misinterpreted or
misspoke. For example, the Stephen Jay Gould quotes were in reference to punctuated
equilibria, which is an alternative to the more traditional Darwinistic gradual
evolutionary theory, not a theory against evolution. <21>
Dr. Saladin presented a convincing argument that combined statements with supporting
facts. Dr. Gish’s argument, however, presented statements backed by nothing. In lieu of
presenting factual data to prove a theory that has its origin on a book that holds mystery
and faith above evidence, he quoted unsupported statements made by subsequent
believers. <19>
Dr. Saladin presented substantial evidence and facts to back up his belief. He was very
confident in all that he said. He gave numerous examples and showed illustrations to help
better understand. As Dr. Saladin said, Dr. Gish was not able to present any evidence nor
facts. He only presented quotes made to discredit evolution, but nothing to back up his
own stand on creation. <24>
Dr. Gish also based his arguments on emotion and quotations. No positive evidence for
his point was given. His research is based on inferences from quality science. Please, Dr.
Gish, use evidence, not inferences that you obtain from dissecting quotes. <21>
You [Dr. Gish] debate with “expert” opinions...but show the evidence. <14>
Facts please, Dr. Gish, give us facts! <23>
APPEAL TO EMOTION
[Dr. Gish relies heavily on an appeal to emotion, to make evolution seem debasing,
unappealing, or responsible for the evils of society.]
Dr. Gish made several remarks about evolutionary science having a negative effect on
students’ sense of worth, i.e., “we are directly related to earthworms” etc. Scientific fact
and theory are meant to present a view of how the world works, not to bolster a child’s
self-esteem. If curriculum were required to empower, then history could not be taught
either. <16>
Many of Dr. Gish’s quotes were simply used to elicit an emotional response. Science is
not meant to bolster my self-esteem. If there is evidence that can be scientifically
supported that makes me feel like less of a person, I want to learn it. Education exists to
educate, not to make us feel good. Evolution is a random process, it’s not always going to
make sense. Dr. Saladin made that clear; Dr. Gish seemed to ignore it. <12>
In the beginning of his argument, Dr. Gish assumed that everyone in the audience had
some religious background. This was not a good idea because not everyone would see a
problem with being related to an earthworm. <9>
Loser: Dr. Gish, because of emotional appeals that he wants meaning in life (he is
horrified by idea that life is random) (trying to scare audience is not good argument) (&
not wanting to believe something does not make it untrue). <30>
The “facts” presented by Dr. Gish were meant to appeal to a person’s emotions over a
person’s logic. <19>
Gish: emotional. Saladin: logical. <14>
FALSE DICHOTOMY
[Can special creation be proven merely by disproving evolution, or does it need positive
evidence in its own right?]
I think Dr. Gish should have spent more time only supporting creationism and not putting
down evolution. Disproving one does not prove the other. <5>
[Dr. Gish] also spent most of his time discussing what was wrong with evolution.
Disproving evolution does not prove creation. <9>
In order to prove creationism one must first show fact[s] of creationism. <19>
THERMODYNAMICS
[Dr. Gish argued that the second law of thermodynamics makes impossible any change
from disorder to order, or from simplicity to complexity. I cited the 1977 Nobel Prize in
Chemistry given to Ilya Prigogine for showing that thermodynamics is consistent with the
evolution of complexity. Gish argued that Prigogine’s work did not prove this and was
irrelevant to the debate.]
Concerning the Nobel Prize, though neither party could at the time produce hard
evidence. However, Dr. Saladin showed where we could find it. Dr. Gish did no such
thing. <12> [I gave the URL of the Swedish Academy web site to document what the
Nobel was awarded for.]
[Of] course it does have something to do with the subject; it’s an analogy, which helps
people relate to the subject. Yes, he did get the Nobel Prize for thatI researched it myself!
Where’s your proof that it was won for another purpose? Convince me, you haven’t yet.
<29>
Gish’s second law tactic failed. <23>
I don’t care what that guy got the Nobel Prize for! <6>
ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE
[Dr. Gish argues that the Big Bang origin of the universe is contradicted by the laws of
thermodynamics and therefore did not happen.]
I must say that Dr. Saladin never said he believed in the Big Bang. <20> [It is correct that
I neither affirmed nor denied it. I said that as a biologist, I was there to discuss biology,
not astrophysics and the Big Bang.]
Big Bang has zilch to do with evolutionary theory. <14>
ARGUMENTS ON THE FOSSIL RECORD
Yes, some intermediates are missing, but there are others that are undeniable. <14>
[Dr. Saladin] gave clear examples of evolution with traceable ancestors. <14>
The lack of illustrations of transitional fossils -- good argument, but answered by Saladin.
<14>
[Is Saladin] using fraudulent data? Are those pictures out of order/scale etc.? <14> [I
showed a slide of the mandibles of a series of transitional fossil species between reptiles
and mandibles. Gish argued that the illustration was fraudulent because two of its
numerous illustrations are hypothetical intermediates, the specimens are not drawn to the
same scale, and they are not in temporal order.]
[To Dr. Gish] With respect to Archaeopteryx, please refer to a comparison of bones
between it and a bird. Note the sternum, the bone density, and muscle attachments. <21>
[I argued from anatomical evidence that Archeopteryx is intermediate between reptile and
bird, and more reptilelike than birdlike. Gish argued that because it had feathers, it was
100% bird.]
Transitional species were brought to the table by Saladin. <23>
Claims lack of transitional forms is conclusive, but Dr. Saladin pointed out several
transitional forms which he ignored and then used this “inability” (false) to cite examples
as proof (and lack of proof does not disprove). His main “positive” argument was negated
by Dr. Saladin, but he ignored that evidence of why his thinking is flawed (e.g., that the
fossil record shows no transitional forms), and it wasn’t really positive, but formed
centerpiece. <30>
Saladin did not counter Cambrian argument. <23> [I gave an extensive argument in my
opening that the Cambrian explosion is entirely inconsistent with creationism. Dr. Gish
argued that it is proof of special creation. I felt no need (or time) to revisit the issue in the
rebuttal period.]
OTHER SCIENTIFIC ISSUES
[Saladin used a] good argument on useless organisms [organs]. <14> [Referring to my
examples of vestigial organs.]
The origin of races can be traced to the ability of melanin to absorb and/or reflect UV
light. Regions where there is more UV light, more melanin therefore darker skin. <21>
[Refers to an audience question on how evolution and creation account for the origin of
races. I discounted the idea that “races” exist but discussed the evolutionary basis of skin
color as this respondent notes. Gish based his response on the tower of Babel.]
[Gish used] faulty logic (for instance his denial that bacteria resistant to antibiotics has
always been present -- obviously does not account for most scientific evidence). Most of
his evidence was flawed exactly as Dr. Saladin pointed out and he didn’t refute or answer
those refutations. <30>
BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL ISSUES
[In the opening argument, I cited several passages of the Bible that show it should not be
taken literally as science -- e.g., that the earth does not move, the sun revolves around the
earth, and bats are birds. My closing statement was dedicated to showing that numerous
denominations and religious leaders oppose creationism and have issued public position
statements on the harmony of evolution and Christian faith.]
[On the problems of] taking bible literally -- good slide. <29>
Dr. Gish also tried to refute Dr. Saladin’s bible quotes; he should do more research, I
have read many of those passages myself. Dr. Saladin makes an extremely strong point
with those quotes, since Dr. Gish’s organization is supposed to take all of the bible as
fact. <12>
Dr. Saladin’s closing was very tactical. At this time he had given enough evidence and
proven his case. He needed to win the crowd. I think he did this. Dr. Gish also made a
good plea, trying to win audience sympathy. It was a very close and good debate. Dr.
Saladin won marginally for providing scientific evidence. <11>
Dr. Gish needs to decide whether he believes in the Bible or not, and decide what exactly
is meant by the Bible because to misinterpret it and to take what it says out of context is
blasphemy and does more harm to creationism than talking about evolution. <10>
I did not like Saladin’s...generalization of Christians accepting evolution. <6>
Dr. Gish disapproved evolution saying that the basis for evolution as the adaptation of
species to new environments and improving their procreation rate is totally meaningless.
Which meaning is he referring to? Why should it have a meaning? Is he referring to a
Christian meaning from his religious point of view? If so, he is assuming certain facts
that belong to his personal faith but cannot be proved by any means. <25>
ACADEMIC FREEDOM
[Dr. Gish argued that academic freedom gives students the right to hear both sides. I
argued that academic freedom is a concept that protects government-employed teachers
from political reprisal for the free expression of their well-considered ideas.]
Dr. Gish is unclear about the definition of academic freedom. <8>
SCIENTIFIC METHOD/CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENCE
[Does creationism exhibit the defining characteristics of science, such as empiricism,
falsifiability, tentativeness, and scientific method? I showed photographs of pages from
Gish’s and other creationist literature to show that creationist thinking is the antithesis of
these qualities.]
Dr. Gish didn’t prove creationism’s falsifiability. Dr. Gish didn’t apply special creation to
the scientific method. It wasn’t proven that special creation was a scientific theory. <8>
[Dr. Gish] should have presented more evidence for how scientific creationism is
scientific and how it uses scientific method. Evidence like the Grand Canyon, out of order
rock strata, etc. might have been useful to him. <7>
True, creationism can’t be falsifiable. <14>
I really believe Gish committed a grave mistake when he said neither C nor E are science,
then he said it was science. <6>
Gish completely blew off the fact of researching. That’s very troubling. <23>
I believe that Dr. Gish clearly demonstrated the myopic views of creation scientists.
Believe in creation if you like, have faith in God -- fine. But this is belief and faith, not
categories of science. <27>
[Gish made] no apparent use of scientific method. Lots of pseudoscience (e.g.,
complexity requires intelligent creator). <30>
General note -- Since Dr. Gish practices and demonstrates pseudoscience, I’m not sure
that he deserves equal time (just as evolution does not belong in schools). He models bad
arguments and is not a positive model. Yet many people obviously were persuaded by
him, solidifying their own misunderstanding. <30>
Claimed he’s a scientist because he worked with Nobel Prize winners, but gave no
citations of actual scientific articles he has published (in scientific journals). <30> [Dr.
Gish does have ample publications, mostly from the 1950s to 1970s, in peer-reviewed
biochemistry journals.]
Gish: [If evolution is] pseudoscience, [are] scientists not really involved in science
research? Convince me! <29>
What is science? Falsifiability -- had already struck it down. And anyways, even if
evolution couldn’t be falsifiable, this does not mean creationism is true. <29>
EVOLUTION AS RELIGION
[One of Dr. Gish’s tactics is to argue that evolution and creationism are on an equal
footing because both are equally religious.]
Obviously both men believe so strongly in their ideals that it is indeed a religion to them.
<23>
[Dr. Gish’s] argument involving evolution as a religion is unrelated to the resolution.
<14>
I just don’t think I buy the “evolution is religion” argument. People don’t practice
evolution and worship it like a religion. <7>
GENERAL DEBATING STYLE
It is great that both of you can argue reasonably and rationally. It was good! <2>
[Dr. Gish] spoke slowly but went overtime. This was not good. He used good debating
tactics of winning the crowd. <11>
Dr. Gish also went over his time more often than Dr. Saladin did. <9> [I don’t think I
ever spoke overtime. I timed my presentations carefully in order to always finish before
my allotted time was up, and I don’t think the moderator ever had to announce that my
time had run out.]
I felt that during the openings, Saladin was more scientifically informative, more
audience-friendly, and more reliable than Gish and his information. <29>
Saladin [used] good humor and wonderful research; very thorough. <29>
I did not like Saladin’s joke as a rebuttal. <6> [Refers to an audience question directed to
Gish about Eve “evolving” from Adam’s rib. There being no way to discuss this from a
scientific standpoint, I used my 60-sec rebuttal time to tell an Adam and Eve joke
(...Adam: “What can I get for a rib?”)]
Dr. Saladin did a good job of showing evidence for evolution. It seems he could have
attacked creationism more and not just the people. At times he came across pretty mean.
<5> [An apparent reference to my showing slides of what Dr. Gish and his ICR
cofounder Henry Morris have written -- such as saying dinosaurs snort fire from their
noses (Gish) and plants are not living organisms (Morris).]
Flowers not living -- good defense point. <29> [Refers to Gish’s response to my point
that Morris argues on biblical grounds that plants are not alive.]
Good Morris and Gish quotes. <29>
Dr. Saladin gave relevant arguments to support evolution and the definition of it. He gave
example after example of how evolution is true. He had much stronger arguments and
more organized thoughtful statements. <20>
He (Saladin) was a bit too sarcastic at times, but I believe his argument was much more
believable and reliable. Dr. Saladin is much more professional and accurate. I believe he
strongly won the debate. <13> [My wife and son attended the debate (but did not vote or
submit any of these written comments). They said they felt some of the audience reacted
negatively to my occasional “fish/Gish” word play. I felt it was a rather mild joke
following in the vein of the book I had already shown, by one of Gish’s ardent admirers,
titled From Fish to Gish.]
[Dr. Saladin won decisively] by virtue of rational, impersonal, scientific fact and theory.
Dr. Saladin brought along a surplus of supporting data, while Dr. Gish sounded a bit
more like a smear campaign. <16>
[Dr. Gish won decisively because he] presented clearly his points, he was not derogative
[sic] towards Dr. Saladin, he not only describes his opinions but knows other’s opinions
in the “scientific” community. Dr. Saladin seems less open-minded than Dr. Gish. <4>
Dr. Saladin’s presentation was very smooth. It was clear with good supporting evidence.
He seemed to be speaking quickly showing he had a lot to say. Many good points were
mentioned. He summarized his case well. He looked a bit nervous though. He seemed
better prepared with lots of material. Dr. Gish had a more laid back approach. He was a
convincing speaker. <11>
Dr. Saladin was leading at the end of the [opening] arguments. Dr. Saladin’s rebuttals
were good and were informative, but Dr. Gish’s obvious experience in debating and
confidence caught up with Dr. Saladin’s obvious lead at the beginning. <11>
Dr. Saladin tried to address the central issues of the debate whereas Dr. Gish frequently
digressed into irrelevant areas. <18>
[In the rebuttal period Saladin was] very good, very well organized and raises excellent
points about your and Gish’s argument. Awesome analogies, they really helped me to
understand your point. <29>
[Dr. Saladin] was accurate in his prediction of Gish’s arguments. <13> [At the close of
my opening statement, I predicted from past debates what arguments Gish would
probably use.]
You [Gish] cricitize Dr. Saladin’s use of “extremist” viewpoints, yet you use the same
strategy. <14> [Probably refers to my quotes from Henry Morris about nonliving plants
and so forth. But Morris and Gish were the cofounders of the Institute for Creation
Research, so I felt these were mainline views for the institute Gish represented at this
debate. On Gish’s side, this remark might refer to his quotations from outspoken
evolutionary atheists such as Richard Dawkins.]
Don’t use such a negative analogy (Tim McVeigh) with evolution. It plants a bad seed in
audience’s mind. <14> [I had pointed out that McVeigh was convicted of the Oklahoma
City bombing entirely on circumstantial evidence, in the course of comparing the work of
paleontology to the work of a detective solving a crime from the evidence, in the absence
of eyewitnesses.]
Dr. Saladin’s points were clear and well explained for the most part. I am currently taking
biodiversity so I was able to follow Dr. Saladin for the most part. However, Dr. Gish
contradicted everything I have been taught. I know it is his objective but at the same time
he did not show any evidence. He kept saying evolution doesn’t have any proof or
evidence but Dr. Saladin was able to show proof. Dr. Gish’s arguments were choppy and
unconvincing with the current knowledge I have of biology. Dr. Gish is explaining
processes in part without regard to the whole process. I am not sure if he purposely leaves
out information or if he is just ignorant on the whole of the process he is trying to
criticize. I feel that Dr. Saladin has researched both sides of the argument thoroughly but
Dr. Gish did not. <22>
Jury example was a great comparison although a little bit out of place. <29> [Reference
fo an analogy by Gish to arguing a case to a jury and educating the jury on the science
needed to understand a forensic case.]
Winner: Dr. Saladin, because of much more actual evidence (positive evidence), sounder
logic, better refutation of opposition, very clear and easy to follow, very complete
argument. <30>
VISUAL AIDS
[I used mainly 35 mm slides and Dr. Gish used only overhead transparencies.]
I liked the monkey though; I want one! [Gish’s slide of a monkey with its hair standing
on end.] <29>
Oh my God! What are these transparencies! <14> [Reference to some extremely
complicated transparencies Gish used on the complexity of bacterial flagella.]
Dr. Gish had nicer overheads, but Dr. Saladin won with logic and empirical evidence!
<17>
ANSWERS TO AUDIENCE QUESTIONS
[The moderator selected five questions for each of us and alternated between speakers.
Even-numbered questions were directed to me and odd-numbered questions to Gish.
Each person had 2 minutes to answer and the opponent had 1 minute to respond. I cannot
remember what all the questions were and have not yet viewed the videotape of the
debate. The general topics of the questions that I do remember or can reconstruct from
notes are given below.]
#1, to Saladin [How did lungs evolve?] Saladin never did say they evolved from swim
bladders, he was comparing anatomies. <29> [Actually I did say the evolved from swim
bladders. Gish said that other evolutionists say it was the reverse of this. But after the
debate, I found we were both wrong. Lungs and swim bladders evolved independently
from diverticula of the upper digestive tract.]
#2, to Gish [don’t recall subject]. [Saladin’s] slide convinced me more than Gish’s
argument. <29>
#3, to Saladin [What is evolution, a fact or a theory?] Evolution is testable to scientific
method. It’s true that most theories are accepted facts, or at last, that argument was more
effective, anyways. <29>
#4, to Gish [don’t recall subject]. Saladin was just more convincing again, mainly
because the bible was mentioned [by Gish]. I thought it was a science? <29>
#5, to Saladin [How can the Big Bang theory be reconciled with entropy?].
Thermodynamics was addressed effectively a long time ago in the debate. It doesn’t need
to be repeated. But Gish did effectively address the question better, though. <29>
#6, to Gish [don’t recall subject]. Ehh, brain and thermodynamics are different, tho. Ehh?
Wasn’t answered. <29>
#7, to Saladin [don’t recall subject]. Gish based it too much on quotes. <29>
#8, to Gish [don’t recall subject]. The question was poorly worded. Gish is basing it on
God! How is that science?! Gish tried to continue the last question. LOL. <29>
#9, to Saladin [don’t recall subject] Too many quotes, Gish! Come up with your own
information and arguments. <29>
#10, to Gish [don’t recall subject] No matter how you look at it, creation is religion
because a supernatural being is involved, and that brings religion into school. <29>
[Following were the general subjects of the other questions, taken from surviving
question sheets, but I can’t match these up exactly to the above remarks until I see the
videotape.]
·
If man did not evolve from apes, how did we get here?
·
How can Gish explain how Eve was created from Adam’s rib and was able to
function with only a single rib used to create her.
·
(To Gish) Considering the second law of thermodynamics, have humans
deteriorated since the cave man?
·
(To Gish) If nothing ever goes from disorder to order, how does he explain growth
of infants into adults?
·
(To Saladin) Is any compromise possible between evolution and creation?
GENERAL REMARKS
I thoroughly enjoyed this debate. I am trying to base my decision on just the debate and
not my personal beliefs. This isn’t hard because I still don’t know where I stand.
...Overall, I thought it was a very good debate and made me think about and question
many ideas on both sides. <5>
When Dr. Gish said if he can’t convince us, then he quits, the debate was almost over.
It’s his job to convince us of his side in this debate. That’s what he’s here to do. <29>
I am a creationist, however, I am inclined to vote for Dr. Saladin as the winner of this
debate. Dr. Gish simply bashed evolution, nothing more. ... I still believe in creation but
now I look for a greater proponent of it. Gish had an hour to impress me and he simply
did not. However, I would also like to add that my mind did wander occasionally and for
that reason I will vote marginally for Saladin. ...Oh yeah, just to be clear, Saladin won
the debate, not evolution. <6>
The main point behind Dr. Gish’s arguments came out too late. Dr. Saladin’s arguments
spiked many of Dr. Gish’s arguments. <15>
Both sides presented very well and gave evidence against each other. My rational thought
however was persuaded by the fact that there must have been a designer in this complex
system. I am not going to vote on a winner but just wish to state that I see problems with
both views but feel that both can go hand in hand with evolution working as a designed
process. <2>
Our spacecraft proves most science fact and theory is true and we know how to use it.
<17>
Dr. Saladin did more to poke holes in the creation life boat, he also showed that evolution
and religion can coexist. However, he was unconvincing in some of his rebuttals, but
overall he did a better job than Dr. Gish. <9>
In Dr. Saladin’s rebuttal, he proved the fallacies in Gish’s argument. <19>
E and C are theories of history. Why shouldn’t both be taught. Neither is proven (with
naked eye) without a dought [sic]. <3>
Dr. Saladin gave an enormous amount of information, supporting his beliefs and
supporting science; whether or not it is all true or not really doesn’t matter because at
least he gave evidence and supported it. I personally do not agree with all the aspects of
evolution, but I still feel Dr. Saladin won this debate because he supported his side. <10>
I believe they both won. Both had strong arguments. I enjoyed the debate and have a lot
to think about, however I do agree with both on certain parts of their beliefs and hope that
they can come to break down and realize that they both are right!! Because everyone has
the right to believe what they believe! If you feel good about what you believe, no one
should question your belief, but offer opinions and share beliefs. You both did an
excellent job. Thank you. <1>
A few refutations he [Gish] offered (e.g., I’m not like a Nazi because I fought in WW II)
did not even answer he actual arguments Dr. Saladin offered on the sheet. <30> [My
audience handout on evidence of evolution remarked that creationism is a pseudoscience,
similar in technique to the pseudoscience used by Holocaust deniers and medical quacks.]
------------------------------------------<1-2>
Voted that either both or neither debater won
<3>
<4>
<5-11>
<12-30>
Voted Gish a marginal win
Voted Gish a decisive win (as did two ballots without comments)
Voted Saladin a marginal win
Voted Saladin a decisive win