Michael Shermer debating Eric Hovind--Kent's son-- on radio today

[Questioninggeller]

Michael Shermer is debating Eric Hovind on St. Louis Radio. 97.1. You can listen at the radio station's website: http://www.971talk.com/glover/index.aspx (Glover Show, May 27, 2009). The show's podcasts appear here the day after broadcast.

Why is Shermer debating this fool? There is no evidence Eric is well-read on anything remotely related to science. Why give Hovind a platform to sell his father's videos?

In fact, Shermer wrote in 2004:

...
Who won the debate? Intellectually, I did, with Hovind once again conceding defeat on the last question of the evening: "What is the best evidence for the creation?" He answered: "The impossibility of the contrary" (evolution). In that simple statement, Hovind confessed the scientific "sin" of all creationists: Disproving evolution does not prove creationism. "And then a miracle happens" is not science. To Hovind and all creationists I say: I think you need to be more explicit here in step two.
...
The problem is that this is not an intellectual exercise, it is an emotional drama. For scientists, the dramatis personae are evolutionists vs creationists, the former of whom have an impregnable fortress of evidence that converges on an unmistakable conclusion; for creationists, however, the evidence is irrelevant. This is a spiritual war, whose combatants are theists vs atheists, spiritualists vs secularists, Christians vs Satanists, godfearing capitalists vs godless communists, good vs evil. With stakes this high, and an audience so stacked, what chance does any scientist have in such a venue? Thus, I now believe it is a mistake for scientists to participate in such debates and I will not do another. Unless there is a subject that is truly debatable (evolution vs creation is not), with a format that is fair, in a forum that is balanced, it only serves to belittle both the magisterium of science and the magisterium of religion.

 

[SRW]

Revenge? Who knows, Shermer was poorly treated by Hovind in the earlier debate, and it could be he wants to show that he can win on merit.

Shermer was not prepared for the mountain of stupid laid down by Kent, I do not think he will be an easy target, I would expect.

I hope he does well, I would rather see Hitchensen, he does a better job of ******* tearing.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Eric Hovind

Kent actually had sex with someone

Thats the strongest argument against reproduction and evolution I've ever heard. How ironic. His very existance is a paradox in itself.

 

[Madalch]

Has anyone listened to it?

 

[Seren_]

Nothing original in the arguments :

Grand Canyon is a sign of the flood...
Evolution is merely an hypothesis...
Dogs can't turn into cats...

What is a bit disheartening is that creationnists arguments while ridiculous are IMHO easier to understand if you know next to nothing.

 

[Madalch]

Nothing original in the arguments :

Grand Canyon is a sign of the flood...
Evolution is merely an hypothesis...
Dogs can't turn into cats...

What is a bit disheartening is that creationnists arguments while ridiculous are IMHO easier to understand if you know next to nothing.

So how did Shermer's part play out?

 

[Seren_]

So how did Shermer's part play out?

Even if what he is saying is utterly stupid, Eric Hovind sounds livelier and more enthusiast than Michael Shermer, who's trying explain more complex stuff.

I don't really know which side has the upper hand.

 

[JohnG]

I genuinely like and respect Shermer and I've read a couple of his books, but he really does need to work on his debating skills. More often than not he comes off as too affable and conciliatory. He could learn a thing or two from Randi, Hitchens and Dawkins. Even Carl Sagan, while never known as a fiery orator, was a better debater than Shermer.

 

[jasonpatterson]

The problem with a radio debate is that someone like Hovind can (and did) make wild, false claims and there is no practical way to show that they are false.

Example (paraphrasing heavily):
Hovind: The Grand Canyon was caused by the biblical flood.
Shermer: Floods cause piles of debris, there is no giant pile of debris in the Grand Canyon. It wasn't caused by a flood.
Hovind: You're wrong, there is other evidence that shows it was caused by a flood. (No actual evidence mentioned, as I recall.)

It all devolves quickly into an "is so!" vs "is not!" type of argument and because the time is limited and the moderation is lax, to say the least, there is never any actual conclusion on any given point. They just shouted a lot.

Hovind was very fond of the idea of evolution as an interpretation of facts rather than as a fact in itself. I suppose that that is true, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means that it's a way of explaining a set of facts (as is creationism, I suppose.) The difficulty is that one of them is useful and the other is not. I'm surprised that Shermer didn't make that point, as it is one of evolution's strongest pieces of support. We can make predictions with evolution and eventually we find them to be true. In the case of creationism, the only prediction we've got is that god will come and trash the place again someday. The time frame for that is not specified, of course, so we're always just waiting.

I think that Dawkins does a better job of expressing himself in debate form, to be sure, but Christopher Hitchens tends to behave as poorly or more poorly than just about anyone. I'm not saying that I disagree with what he's saying, in general, but he is so abrasive about it that he stands very little chance of actually changing anyone's mind.

 

[Tanstaafl]

I genuinely like and respect Shermer and I've read a couple of his books, but he really does need to work on his debating skills. More often than not he comes off as too affable and conciliatory. He could learn a thing or two from Randi, Hitchens and Dawkins. Even Carl Sagan, while never known as a fiery orator, was a better debater than Shermer.

Sadly, I must agree. I attended a debate between Shermer and Duane Gish a few years back. Intellectually, Shermer totally trounced him. But I suspect anyone unfamiliar with the science might easily have been swayed by Gish. It was held at a fundamentalist church though, so I don't think anyone in the audience, on either side of the issue, was likely to change their position on the subject based on that debate.

One slide of Shermer's was awesome, though. It showed two images, one of which illustrated science as being about unanswered questions, and the other image showed religion as being unquestioned answers.

 

[Questioninggeller]

Has anyone listened to it?

Download it here:
http://media.971talk.com/Podcasts/5-27PodcastB.mp3

I feel sorry for Eric Hovind, he is way out of his league with facts and basic scientific knowledge. Oh wait,



[Listens to Eric working with Kent Hovind to hide money.] I don't feel sorry.

Even if what he is saying is utterly stupid, Eric Hovind sounds livelier and more enthusiast than Michael Shermer, who's trying explain more complex stuff.

I don't really know which side has the upper hand.

The hosts at the end of the program all thought Shermer won, and described Eric's points/speech as "hucksterism" and trying to sell stuff. But yeah, Shermer could have more enthusiasm.

Also why was Hovind even on the program? He's not an expert, hasn't been published, and doesn't even have a BA degree in any subject. Meanwhile, Shermer is widely published and has a PhD on evolution in the field of the history of science. Having Hovind on your show is a good way to lose credibility.

 

[ScottyMate]

Eric Hovind was utterly obliterated. I almost felt sorry for him, almost. He just regurgitated all the same material his dad spouted, including the same bad jokes like the "slow birth" of the Mammoth.

It's actually embarrassing listening to Shermer run circles round him.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Megalodon]

Actually, Shermer was utterly unprepared for the debate.
He let himself be baited into the Grand Canyon debate, which has nothing to do with evolution.
He couldn't reply to the old C14 lie, and was even unaware of those textbook examples of creationist crap.
Instead of actually explaining evolution, he started attacking the bible.

Overall a bad performance. Fortunately, Hovind was so full of BS that it ended up not mattering, at least till the caller questions, where I stopped listening.

 

[tomwaits]

Shermer says that from now on, he won't debate these people. However, he should have known this already. In fact, his book Why People Believe Weird Things talks about a debate against a Holocaust Denier that turned ugly. He then talks about how Deborah Lipstadt scolded him for even attempting to deny these people: it is unproductive and just gives them legitimacy. Why didn't he listen to her advice the first time?

 

[Questioninggeller]

Carbon Dating

He couldn't reply to the old C14 lie, and was even unaware of those textbook examples of creationist crap.

True. Hovind's recycled mammoth claim has been debunked so many, many times. As Karen Bartelt explained:

...
KH: One part of a mammoth was carbon-dated at 29,000 years old. Another part is 44,000 years old. Here's two parts of the same animal. That's from USGS Professional Paper #862.

Hovind makes a big-time misrepresentation here. I looked at the data in USGS Professional Paper 862. It is a 1975 paper by Troy Pewe entitled "Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska". It is a description of stratigraphic units in Alaska, but does contain more than 150 radiocarbon dates. Many of these dates are from the 1950's and 60's. There are three references to mammoths: hair from a mammoth skull (found by Geist in 1951 in frozen silt); "flesh from lower leg, Mammuthus primigenius" (found by Osborne in 1940, 26 m below the surface); and the "skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius [baby mammoth] (found by Geist in 1948 "with a beaver dam"). The dates given are, respectively, 32,700; 15,380; and 21,300 years BP BUT the last is thought to be an invalid date because the hide was soaked in glycerin.

NOWHERE IN THE PAPER DOES IT SAY, OR EVEN IMPLY, THAT THESE SPECIMENS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME ANIMAL. They were found in different places, at different times, by different people. One is even termed "baby", and the other is not. To construct this Fractured Fairy Tale, Hovind must have hoped that no one listening would check and see what his reference really said.
...

Also debunked at talk origins, specificially Claim CD011.2:

Claim CD011.2:
Widely different radiocarbon dates are obtained from the same frozen mammoths. Different parts of the Vollosovitch mammoth date to 29,500 and 44,000 years before present (BP). One part of Dima, a frozen baby mammoth, was 40,000, another part 26,000, and wood immediately around it was 9-10,000 BP. Two parts of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth date to 15,380 and 21,300 BP.

Source:
1. Brown, Walt, 2001. In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood (7th ed.) Center for Scientific Creation. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FrozenMammoths8.html
2. Hovind, Kent, n.d. Doesn't carbon dating or potassium argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old? drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=CarbonPotassiumargondating.jsp

Response:
1. The dates come from different mammoths. The reference cited by Brown and cribbed by Hovind likely refers only to a Fairbanks mammoth, which Brown also mentions (Péwé 1975, 30). The 15,380 and 21,300 BP dates come from separate mammoths, and it is noted that the 21,300 date is invalid because it comes from a hide soaked in glycerin. It is uncertain what is Brown's source for the 29,500 and 44,000 dates.

Ukraintseva (1993) reviews the Kirgilyakh mammoth, also known as Dima, and cites three dates obtained for it. All are around 40,000 years before present. Dates for deposits surrounding the mammoth are consistent with dates for the mammoth.
References:

1. Péwé, Troy L., 1975. Quaternary stratigraphic nomenclature in unglaciated Central Alaska. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 862.
2. Ukraintseva, V. V., 1993. Vegetation Cover and Environment of the "Mammoth Epoch" in Siberia. Hot Springs, SD: Mammoth Site of Hot Springs of South Dakota.

And even some listeners of the Infidel Guy radio program exposed Kent Hovind's misrepresentations/misunderstandings when he attacks Carbon Dating. The listeners actually read the citations and see that Hovind just made up his claims:


Clearly, Eric Hovind didn't even bother reading the paper before repeating Kent Hovind's lie. I say lie because as you can listen on the radio program (2004) he was corrected and kept telling the falsehood anyway (see his 2006 video series).

I don't really know which side has the upper hand.

The audio debate is here: http://media.971talk.com/Podcasts/5-27PodcastB.mp3
Brief hosts' post-debate comments are here: http://media.971talk.com/Podcasts/5-27PodcastC.mp3

If you listen to the post-debate comments, Hovind did so badly the hosts said Hovind won't be invited back. From their comments:

...
Dave Glover: Welcome back to the Dave Glover Show. Yeah, next time we do that let's find someone who's not selling so much.
Co-host: That's a huckster, man.
Dave Glover: There are plently of people who do not believe in evolution who think that guy is a complete a**.
...