Note: All of the following notes are provided by Terry J. Prewitt as a clarification of rhetorical issues, debate tactics, and positions.  Where I speculate upon or critique the "intentions" of others in the debate, the comment is signed [TJP]; comments offered by others will be noted by the initials of the author .  Biblical citations are from the World English Bible on line.

"If there is a God, we'd better find out who He is..."   This passage and surrounding material employ reference to vague authority and customary opinion to presume that a god must be a singular deity and male, and by implication all powerful.  One might agree that either there are "gods" [supernatural beings?] or not, and if such exist, then it would be interesting to know about them.  On another line of rational approach, one can assert that all gods known to culture certainly exist in culture.  Given the prejudices of monotheism, the thing we perhaps ought to find out is the cultural origin of Mr. Hovind's premise. [TJP] RETURN

"nobody's in charge"  Many monotheists follow a deistic perspective, which takes exactly this point of view while not rejecting the idea of God.   New American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1979) defines deism as:  "The belief, claiming foundation solely upon the evidence of reason, in the existence of God as the creator of the universe who after setting it in motion abandoned it, assumed no control over life, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation."  Mr. Hovind's bias based in theism is implied in this passage: "Belief in the existence of a god or gods; especially, belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world."  We must note, however, that theism does not lead exclusively to monotheism, nor to patriarchal conception of the divine.  Hence, the opening here is a statement of a very narrow premise, not a self-evident summation of the theological alternatives. [TJP] RETURN

"that says man is god"   Humanism, while emphasizing human achievements and capabilities, does not necessarily posit "man as god."  One must remember that the humanist movement of the Renaissance remained deeply footed in theism.  One may also consider that the idea that human beings (exclusively among living things) have a "soul" or "are made in the image of God" or can attain "eternal life" represents a kind of theistic appropriation for humanity.  The question is, "in what way is humanity an imitation of god"? RETURN

"Then there are no rules." A world without God, according to either deism or atheism, is certainly not a world without rules.  Science pursues the laws of nature--the natural forms and limits of material processes, as well as the cultural rules humans have established for effective life in that natural world.  Cultures develop as part of broader homeostatic tendencies of material process in complex systems.  There may not always be rational justifications for cultural patterns, yet most prominent patterns of culture can be explained as supporting some kind of material or emotional need.  The implication that evolutionary science leads to a kind of soul-less anarchy is simply absurd.  Nor does the rhetorical appeal to "authority" which suggests that the evolution-creation controversy is a simple two-sided question follow from the premise that a world without God is a world without rules. RETURN

"In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."  Of course, the Hebrew Bible includes only a small part of the origin tradition of Jewish people and related cultures of the region. The folkloric origin story (Gen.1--Gen.2:4a) is chronologically younger than the story of the creation of Adam and Eve (Gen2:4b ff.), and differs from it in particulars.  These Torah stories are demonstrably linked to a wider body of eastern Mediterranean myth, as well as to a continuing body of historical-legal scripture, most of which is contrary to the Christian interpretation of Genesis.  Yet, Genesis is clearly parallel to other culturally rich origin traditions from around the world, sharing with them mythic/folkloric status, rhetorical style, and connection to specific places. There is nothing beyond the "belief" individuals place in Genesis that gives it special status as a text; Genesis represents, nonetheless, one of the most important of the early comprehensive texts relating to the cultural foundations of any people.  Unfortunately, Genesis was used in the 4th century and beyond by a politically legitimized religious culture which could (a) enforce the fiction that its representations were "true" in detail, and (b) destroy texts and execute people presenting other viewpoints.  Still, from a scientific point of view, no matter how much people want to believe the biblical story, whatever Genesis says is irrelevant to expansion of the "natural" origins of the world as we experience it. RETURN

"...evolution is a philosophy, . . . , but it is not a science."  "Science" is merely the word we use today for "natural philosophy."  "Philosophy" is, to paraphrase the simple definition given by Charles S. Peirce, "the human attempt to understand everything." A core philosophical aspect of science is "epistemology" or "how we know what we know."  Science itself works through a community that constantly questions premises and devises methods of consistent observation, measurement, and prediction through models, following the rules established by epistemology.  The small-scale models of science are generally called "laws" or "empirical generalizations."  They deal with observed patterns and descriptive qualities.  The large-scale models of science are usually called "theories."  They take advantage of what we already know through empirical generalizations, and either describe processes or project things that "ought to be" or that "might be" if the theory is correct.  When we look for the conditions that are implied by a theory and find them in nature, then we gain confidence in a theory.  When overwhelming evidence supports a theory, scientists begin fine-tuning, and in the process usually discover a new level of problem that needs solution.  Thus, for example, "natural selection" led scientists to seek the mechanisms of inheritance, the general concept of "gene" led scientists to the discovery of the structure of DNA, the structure of DNA helped refine the processes of cellular functioning and tissue interactions, etc.  All of these empirical refinements have contributed to the theory of evolution.  Evolution is the theory that helps us understand life-processes generally, both in environmental contexts and through time.  Of course, evolution is philosophy, and the practical work through which evolutionary theory has been developed all falls under the rubric of science. RETURN

"it is a religion..."  To the extent that some people uncritically believe anything offered by scientists, science can ground something like a religion.  But the definition of religion usually also includes some form of "belief in superhuman power(s) that control(s) the universe." In fact, even scientists who believe in the Western monotheist's gods do not consider God relevant to scientific understanding.  If we take nature as the knowable universe, then religious beliefs also often posit not simply superhuman forces, but forces beyond nature (Supernatural forces).  Religious beliefs spring from that branch of philosophy we call "theology" (the theory of god).  That is, religion is similar to science in that both spring from philosophical perspectives, but they are different in that their grounding concepts presume quite different things.   This leaves many options for a relationship between "religion" and "science," beyond the idea that the scientist is simply "deeply devoted to a particular practice" (which is another definition of religion). Since scientists investigate the processes and energy transformations of the "natural" world, the Supernatural is irrelevant.  One might argue that there are many powers in the world that are both "natural" and "superhuman," but these would not necessarily satisfy most theistic conceptions of God. Indeed, the empiricist Hume began his work with the problem of trying to show that miracles (Supernatural events) are possible in nature.  What he developed instead was the epistemic basis of logical positivism, the most demanding of modern scientific empirical demonstrations.  So, in general, science is not religion, though for some people it can generate religious-like beliefs.  What is more important, is that science and religion sometimes attempt to explain the same things with very different kinds of claims and evidence.  So, I'll agree with Kent that when science acts like religion it is not science, but he must give me the point that religion cannot ever pose as science. [TJP] RETURN

"or other life we have ever encountered."  This may seem a picky point, but in the fossil record we do encounter life forms that are no longer found on our planet.  Since some creationist theories recognize the difference, but not the phylogenetic relationships, between present and past life forms, we must include this phrasing.  Of course, other creationist ideas (like "kinds") attempt to use cladistic concepts or other taxonomic manipulations to suggest that derived species are the same as their antecedant populations (a dog is a dog, no matter whether wolf or domestic).  Indeed, these are real taxonomic problems for which critics of current systems have a point, though the creationists have done nothing (of which I am aware) to scientifically resolve any of the issues.  At any rate, I'm not talking about angels, alien life-forms, or multiple creations here. RETURN

". . .more that my even sort of deeper position. . ." My "deeper position" is that life arose here, as it likely has (or will) in many other places in this universe, following completely natural processes.  The name for the general transformation from non-life to life, through successively more complex and inter-dependent life systems, including intelligent (self-reflexive) systems, is evolution. Evolution is a manifestation of the principles of thermodynamics and is fully consistent with them when we consider the difference between the "ideal" of a closed system and the inevitable and many-leveled natural "open" systems in the universe we occupy.  This understanding gives me great appreciation of my life, of my human awareness, and empathy for the other life-forms around me, and awe of the complex relationships of the ecosystem, the world, the solar system, and the dynamic universe.  The particular metaphors through which I celebrate this appreciation and awe (i.e. my religion) are irrelevant to those who do not share in the same derivative mysteries. RETURN

"theistic evolutionary perspective"  Of course, accepting evolutionary explanations for the origins of humanity and all life do not preclude a belief in superhuman agents, supreme or otherwise. Nor must one be a deist in order to accept evolution.  What is unfortunate in much of the creation-evolution debate is that the creationist suggest that they are the only "Christian" perspective on evolution.  If one believes the Bible literally, then it is valid enough to believe that anyone who accepts evolution over the Genesis account is not a Christian.  In the minds of the vast majority of Christians, however, this is a narrow (and many would say irrational) view of things.  It is important to note that even the framers of essays known as "the fundamentals" did not take such a narrow interpretation of scripture.  Statements throughout this debate claim, sometimes directly, that acceptance of evolutionary theory is sufficient to exclude one from the fold of Christianity.  Such a rigid interpretive standard is not applied where Christians have more general cultural agreement, as in choosing not to accept polygyny, surrogate motherhood through concubinage, levirate marriage, stoning as a punishment for blasphemy (thank goodness for that), or indentured slavery.  These all have strong biblical bases that were not scripturally renounced in the gospels. But, enough for the moment; we will take specific issues up as they occur in the debate.  RETURN

"...not only am I an evolutionist but I am also a form critic..."  Later in this debate my credentials were questioned, because I didn't make a big point of saying that I was a scientists, and there was a presumption that an anthropologist could know little about the Bible.  I am equally prepared to discuss technical aspects of evolutionary theory and biblical studies. My Ph.D. in anthropology is from the University of Oklahoma, where I supplemented specific undergraduate courses in physical anthropolgy, human evolution, osteology, and primatology with additional graduate work in physical anthropology and evolution.  I also have an extensive background in geology, including mineralogy, petrology, geomorphology, and structural geology; I supplemented this work with graduate courses in geomorphology and geochronology.  I have taught physical anthropology (including evolution, primate studies,  and human variation) at three different universities.  In addition, while teaching at the University of Tulsa, I worked closely with the religion faculty to gain intensive background in Hebrew Bible studies with additional, more limited, work in New Testament analysis.  That work, all linked to my key specialties in anthropology, led to the publication of The Elusive Covenant (Indiana University Press, 1990), a series of structural and semiotic analyses of kinship, narrative, and law in Genesis and related Torah texts.  I have also completed a critically-informed fictionalized gospel, A Gospel for James, which lays out a number of lines of perspective on the canon gospels in the context of Qumran sectarian texts, the Naj Hammadi library of early Christian texts.  This work is heavily influenced by my readings of the gospels of Mark and John.  All of my biblical work has been inspired by moderns theories of textual criticism, especially "form" or "genre" criticism, and encouraged by colleagues in religious studies.  I have also served as mentor for students accepted to such theology schools as Vanderbilt University, Emory University, and Southern Seminary.   Over the years, my work has moved from the natural-science subdisciplines of anthropology into the more-humanistic branches of ethnography and critical theory. RETURN

10:5But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart, he wrote you this commandment. 10:6But from the beginning of the creation, 'God made them male and female. 10:7For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will join to his wife, 10:8and the two will become one flesh,' so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 10:9What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." RETURN

3:1This is now, beloved, the second letter that I have written to you; and in both of them I stir up your sincere mind by reminding you; 3:2that you should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandments of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior: 3:3knowing this first, that in the last days mockers will come, walking after their own lusts, 3:4and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? For, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." 3:5For this they willfully forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an earth formed out of water and amid water, by the word of God; 3:6by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. 3:7But the heavens that now are, and the earth, by the same word have been stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. RETURN

"...things that are presented in the text books have been proven to be false..." Here begin examples of a category of rhetorical argument that is common to creationist presentation.  This first claim, that "things in the textbooks have been proven wrong"  is the cover for a general tactic of prominently citing descriptive statements or "empirical generalizations"  that have been falsified, qualified, or revised by scientists, usually as part of the process through which science works toward valid results in small steps and critical revisions.   These "wrong" or "disproved" claims are then taken as evidence that the entire "theory" is false.  But the explanation of a wide body of facts through reference to other facts, processes, and discoveries prompted by earlier explanations is almost never called into question because of a single element of description. Because empirical generalizations relate to a limited class of things and are based on limited observations, they may be incorrect without undermining all the other elements of a theory.  The standard creationists seem to want to assert that every element of a theory must be "true" in order for the explanation to be "true" (This is, no doubt, a parallel with the demand they place on the interpretation of the Bible). [TJP] RETURN

"I think this is the lie of the [end times]." Without launching into a detailed exegesis of II Peter 3:3-7, one must note simply that the parallel intended in that scripture placed more emphasis on the flood than on creation.  The flood loomed as God's past punishment of evil men, just as fire looms as the punishment of men at the end time. The believers live and the unbelievers perish in both instances. But this reference is not more specific than Genesis 1 on the "how" of creation.  One can still believe in creation through the means documented by science, taking the creation account as either an "overview" or a "metaphorical" treatment of the material (as many believing Christians do).  Unless one finds scriptural demands for literal interpretation (and textual consistency), II Peter 3:3-7 may not be relevant at all.  It also bothers me somewhat that if the treatment of this passage offered in the debate is correct, the the key element of Christian faith becomes literal belief in Genesis 1 rather than acceptance of Christ as a personal savior. [TJP]  RETURN

"And this poison..." I'm sure Mike intended "this poison" to mean "evolution," though in grammatical context one might take the phrasing as an ironic reference to "creationism." [TJP] RETURN

"you are an animal ..."  Here, we encounter an early wedge of the "design" argument.  The evidence for common heritage is in DNA, which is the same basic structure for all life forms we know.  The creationist will argue that DNA only shows that all life was created by a single designer, a sort of big-bio-engineer in the nether.  This sounds very convincing, but it does not explain why the structure of DNA includes mechanisms to introduce and spread variety in populations (point mutations, karyotype mutations, crossing-over during synapse, gene interactions, etc.). It also does not explain why DNA accomplishes pattern through multiple levels of redundant functioning (i.e. the same thing occurs in more than one way at most levels of systemic hierarchy).   If life was "designed", it was "designed" to change, we might say.  The late Douglas Adams pointed out in one of his lectures that early humans likely projected "god the creator" from their own nature as "creators," and then deduced that the world was created for us because it provides so well for all our needs (Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt, New York: Harmony Books, 2002 pp 131-2). Though such an interpretation of the world does make sense in a species-centric view of things, the presumptions of God and the specialness of humanity are certainly not self-evident scientific facts. [TJP] RETURN

"you ... share a common heritage with earthworms..."  If one does presume God and human specialness, however, the argument shifts to discussions of "kinds" (e.g. "you" and "earthworms") couched in a certain disdain for all the other life forms.  Now the creationist will claim (and with the same conviction I have that "you" are decidedly NOT an earthworm), that no "dog" has ever given birth to anything but a "dog."  Further, the creationist will point out, a "dog" and a "wolf" are actually the same "kind" of animal; this, of course, implies that all species differences are merely differences of "kind."  What the creationist misses, or perhaps even intentionally leaves out, is that any mechanism which allows changes in the original pattern of the species will also allow speciation--i.e., it will allow populations to separated from each other to such a degree that they cannot mate.  Speciation is the inevitable consequence of micro-evolution, and we need not observe a living instance of speciation in order to understand this theoretically.  Additionally, the fossil record is such that we may explain similarities and differences of forms as time- and space-based transformations of forms, and there is no better empirical explanation of such observations.  RETURN

Adolf Hitler  Having said that science has been proved false, that only evil people who will be destroyed by God will reject Genesis 1 as historical truth, that evolution is a "poison" and an intentional "lie," we may now drag up the symbol of evil in the 20th Century, arch-anti-Christian (though followed by millions of Christians) deceiver of the Western World as the model of someone who would probably "believe" in evolution.  Continuing the argument, evolution is not only "the lie of the end time" but it is "the big lie" of an intentional deceiver who only wants power.  Well, this sort of rhetorical attack works well for the church audience, and even many college students. As the attentive observer will note, however, it offers negative "authority" to bolster an unrelated and unsubstantiated claim.  Nor, when we consider what follows, will there be any substantive material supporting such a global character assassination of scientists/humanists. [TJP]

"reasonable grounds upon which you can make a decision..." In true philosophical form, Professor Power offers to outline a basis of "reason" for deciding between alternative and opposed viewpoints.  Clearly "creation" and "evolution" present different interpretations.  The question is how one might use reasoning to decide between the alternatives. [TJP]  RETURN

"...in this room, it needn't."  In fact, unfortunately, a perceptive reader will see from the transcript presented here that the "creation" presentations pursue a rapid-fire series of claims which attempt to keep control of the "debate agenda."  This tactic actually takes the "debate" out of a discursive mode and puts the creation side into a lecture-and-discredit mode.  In other terms, what follows is often not conducted as a debate of issues or a careful investigation of claims.  Rather, an attempt is made to introduce biblical references and citations of supposed authorities to justify "belief" in an unchanging interpretation.  If the biblical claims are challenged directly, we are reminded that the "debate" is about "evolution."  Indeed, the one time I attempted to get Kent Hovind to into a discussion entitled "Genesis: Myth or History" the audience was packed with creationists, the presentation from the other side was focused on evolution, and the audience was hostile to any discussion of biblical topics. I should note that I did receive apologies from several of the vocal attackers when they discovered, at the end of the evening, what they had missed of my presentation on Genesis.  The fact remains that in each of these "debate" exercises, anything that does not fit the creationist preconceptions is summarily dismissed by citing isolated empirical generalizations as "proved" errors, disinformation, misrepresentation, and lies.  What is always most difficult to understand is how people can get away with using the very tactics they condemn to impugn the entire scientific community [TJP].  RETURN

"And I think you lose;..." I have often argued in the past, during such contests, that "creation science" is the scientific position that dominated the 19th century, and that the modern synthetic theory of evolution is the result of science falsifying the specific implications of a literal interpretation of Genesis.  In other words, this critical scrutiny has already occurred, with the result that Genesis provides few hypotheses contributive to a current scientific theory of the origins of the world.  In fact, if one reads also The Golden Bough by Sir James Frazer, it is clear that 19th century scholarship had a very clear understanding of the relationship of the Hebrew origin traditions to other prominent Western origin stories, mythic, folkloric, and historical.  The critical point here, as Nick Power implies, is that a minority Christian fundamentalist community wants to dominate education and scientific research in ways that will reify the mythic canons of its arbitrarily adopted belief system.  "Creation science" is not only an unfortunate oxymoron, its practitioners simply do not engage in basic science.  Creation ministries have a place in our society, of course, but not in positions allowing them to undermine basic science education and practice. [TJP]  RETURN

"He's much more subtle, ..."  We see in this phrasing how pervasive is the phallocentric bias of Western culture, where philosophers seeking neutral language still use "He" as a reference for "God," when there is no self-evident reason for such a presumption.  More important, I want to point out that in clarifying the "theistic evolution" position as an alternative, Professor Power seems to have a much less limited conception of this "personified" God than that of the creationists.  God is not only all-powerful, he can even be clever and flexible in his manifestations! [TJP]  RETURN