Smith vs. Jackson in Yukon, OK

Last night, I went out with a few friends to watch Abbie Smith debate a renowned young-earth creationist and itinerant preacher named Charles Jackson.

My first impression was that she’s a Mac, and he’s a PC. Abbie came off as more spontaneous and vastly less rigid and pompous than her interlocutor, especially after she really warmed to her work. Dr. Jackson, by contrast, pretty much followed his usual formula, which you can enjoy on YouTube. Also, it is of some note that Abbie is waaaay friendlier in person than one might ever suppose from reading her blog. I already knew that, but still, the contrast was striking.

Probably the most striking part of Dr. Jackson's presentation was the part in which he admitted (and even displayed) the remarkable degree of homology between human and chimp genomes and then when on to claim that this evidence is not to be taken as confirmation of common descent, but rather as evidence of an intelligent designer who pretty much recycles as much genetic material as possible when making new species. This guy can speak the whole cosmos into being, but cannot seem to be bothered to invent too much in the way of unique gene sequences for the one and only species that created specifically in the hopes that they would eventually get around to freely loving and worshipping Him. Small wonder, then, that the humans so often take to murdering each other for access to resources and mates, as if they were naught but tallish, baldish apes.

The good doctor took this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, namely, that the chromosomal fusion event (absolutely necessary to confirm the theory of common descent) did actually happen, but it happened in humans - presumably sometime between the creation of Adam and Eve and the eventual extermination of almost the entire species in the Noahic flood.

Congratulations, then, to Dr. Jackson for putting forth a research agenda for creation scientists everywhere. His hypothetical homo sapiens with 24-pairs of chromosomes should be found in strata just below the Noahic floodline, having lived only a few thousand years ago, somewhere between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Once the unfairly marginalized (dare I say EXPELLED) research scientists of the ICR make this find, they will finally get the attention they so roundly deserve. Go to it, guys!

• Unbeliever rating: 4.0 stars
  
  
• Believer rating: 3.0 stars
  
  
• Overall rating: 3.5 stars

George vs. Miller in Edmond, OK

This debate was held between two local profs at UCO who are actually fairly good friends in real life, which makes for a fairly light-hearted and laid-back atmosphere which you almost never get from the guys on the professional debate circuit.  They also elected to remain seated, which adds to the informal look and feel of this event.

Dr. Doug Miller makes a fairly original argument for classical theism, predicated more-or-less entirely on the ministry of Jesus:

1.       If Jesus told the truth, then the Heavenly Father described by Jesus exists

2.       Jesus did tell the truth

3.       :. God exists

He goes on to claim that we can support premise #2 from the evidences of Jesus’ resurrection.

 Dr. John George outlines a few arguments against theism, including the argument from evil (alas! – in deductive form), an unusual argument about the psychological origins of hell, an argument about the futility of prayer, and a few miscellaneous remarks on the Ten Commandments.

After the opening statements, we’ve heard rather little in the way of well-supported arguments from either side, but then again, the opening statements were only ten minutes apiece.  In the rebuttal period, Dr. Miller leads with the argument from the missing body, which he dubs the “great corpus delecti” case of history.  He then goes on a bit about the dramatic transformation of Jesus’ disciples after his death.