BBC-TV Reveals New Evolution Debate Strategy

An important update …

Very few creation vs. evolution debates have been held in recent years compared to the 1970s and 1980s, when hundreds were conducted. Because evolutionary scientists have not fared well in these debates (and even their evolutionary colleagues admit this), if a debate is being considered, evolutionists are more agreeable to participate if the odds can be improved: especially if it’s 3 evolutionists against 1 creationist!

That ratio was in play on March 17 when Ken Ham appeared live on Great Britain’s “Newsnight” program on BBC-TV. Billed as a panel discussion, it turned out to be three evolutionary scientists debating Ken. Even with the improved “odds,” the three prominent evolutionists fared quite poorly. In fact, a non-Christian, noncreationist viewer told Ken Ham on the day after the debate that he once had great respect for two of the evolutionists he knew, but that their poor showing and “arrogance” prompted him to reevaluate his opinion of them.

A lot of “stupid people” in America

During the debate, the most abrasive evolutionist, Prof. Steve Jones, a geneticist at the University College of London, declared that there are a lot of “stupid people” in America who do not believe in evolution, and then quickly added that this applied to Australians as well, a clear dig at Australian guest Ken Ham! So much for British civility! He also declared that he despised people—meaning creationists—who tell “lies to children.”

This same evolutionist, when asked by Ken for specific evidence for evolution, replied: “salmon speciation” in America. Ken quickly pointed out that the salmon ten years later are still salmon, and continue to produce just more salmon, and that creationists believe in speciation anyway. Because no new genetic information was added to the new salmon species, it would remain a salmon! So much for Prof. Jones’s academic brilliance!

Prof. Colin Blakemore, a neuroscientist at Oxford University, was the master of hyperbole when he declared that the Kansas school board decision to de-emphasize the teaching of evolution last August was “dangerous for the future of science” in America! So much for British understatement!

Prof. Blakemore was echoing the comment made by an evolutionary scientist from Kansas who, in “Newsnight’s” opening segment, incredibly declared that “high-tech businesses may not come to Kansas” because of the school board’s “insidious” decision about evolution teaching!

The third evolutionist, Prof. Russell Stannard, a nuclear physicist at the Open University, declared that the evidence for evolution was “overwhelming.” To claim otherwise, he declared, was to be “intellectually dishonest.” He added that even though he is a Christian (a “theistic evolutionist”), he sees no conflict because Genesis is just a “story” and should not be taken literally. Ham countered with the observation that Genesis is written as “historical narrative,” not poetry, and that even Jesus Christ accepted it as history.

Who’s really telling the truth?

The opening segment of the broadcast declared that the Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925 supposedly “sorted out” things regarding creation vs. evolution. Ham pointed out that almost all the so-called “evidence” for evolution that was paraded at the trial and written down in the court transcripts was eventually thrown out—and by evolutionists themselves! As for the accusation that he tells “lies,” Ham observed that the truths of the Bible didn’t change in 1925, but that evolution did.

The “set-up” piece to the BBC debate also declared that:

• “scientists must fight back”, as a Kansas evolutionist said, against anti-evolution teaching, implying that there are no scientists who believe in Genesis creation! There are, however, literally thousands of practicing creation scientists—holding graduate degrees in science—around the world.

• Christians in Kansas were attempting last August to have “Genesis told instead” of evolution in its public schools. That is blatantly false—the issue was not about replacing evolution with creation, but over a mild de-emphasizing of evolution teaching.

• creationists “deny fossil evidence,” such as dinosaur fossils. On the contrary, creationists have the same fossil evidence and the same dinosaur bones, but they disagree with evolutionists over “the interpretation” of how dinosaurs fit with Earth history.

• the creation movement in America is “well oiled.” We are flattered, but the recent movements around the United States to de-emphasize evolution teaching in public schools have really been grassroot efforts spearheaded by local citizens, and have not been led by national groups like Answers in Genesis. In reality, the “well-oiled” movement is the evolution one, where billions of taxpayer dollars each year are being poured into British schools, research centers, and government-supported TV programs that preach evolution with evangelistic fervor.

AiG’s office in England (located in Leicester) received many complimentary phone calls and emails after the debate. It was a great encouragement to the British AiG staff to hear from so many of its supporters. They report that this TV debate was probably the highest profile the AiG ministry has yet had in Britain, and was followed up soon with a major article in the London newspaper the Independent.

Deja vu

The last true debate involving AiG was also a “3-on-1” TV event. Surprisingly, this occurred more than three years ago (remember, evolutionists rarely agree to debate anymore), and was aired on the statewide TV program “Kentucky Tonight” (broadcast throughout AiG’s home state of Kentucky).

The producers apparently thought it fair that Dr. Gary Parker of AiG—by himself—should debate three evolutionists. (AiG asked the producers if Dr. Parker could be joined by one other creationist, but they declined.) Dr. Parker proceeded with the debate anyway, and by all accounts acquitted himself admirably. Dr. Parker, a former evolutionist and atheist, knows virtually all the supposed evidence for evolution, so he had little difficulty swatting away the evolutionists’ arguments.