“Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?”

Agree on Debating Conditions.

It is a pity that the debate is not to be held at a neutral venue with a representative audience, but there we are. Remember, we are not dealing with people who have the slightest sense of truthfulness, honesty and decency.


Allowing them full control of the conditions will be asking to be ripped to shreds.

I suggest you ask Ken Ham to engage with you in writing, in public, to come to an agreement on the conditions under which you will debate. I suggest the following:
  • You agree the format, giving each equal time to present your arguments and to respond to one another's arguments.
  • You agree not to interrupt one another.
  • You agree on what presentation technology you can each use.
  • You agree to restrict your arguments to those which are directly relevant to the debate topic.
  • You agree on definitions pertaining to the debate proposal.
  • You agree to have several independent people/organizations record and publish the debate in full.

If Ken Ham refuses to engage with you over conditions, and you still wish to go ahead, bring the fact up in the debate.

Re. definitions, "creation" should be tied down to Ham's own notion of creation - everything created in six literal 24 hour days some 6,000 - 10,000 years ago. "Origins" can mean origins of the universe, of life, of species, of geological strata, of scripture, or any agreed combination. This is very important, to preempt any weaseling over definitions when backed into a corner, as creationists so often try to do.


If you can keep the debate to a discussion of the proposal, you can have Ken Ham on the defensive all the time. You are not there to defend biology, cosmology, astronomy, geology and origin of life research. Any mention of these, and you can rightly accuse Ham from straying from the subject of the debate. He is there to defend creationism as a viable model of origins.

You are there to point out why creationism is not a viable model of origins. Use the evidence, but not in defense of the sciences that creationists abhor. Use the evidence to point out precisely what creationism cannot explain. An explanation makes it clear why things are one way and not some other way. This is creationism's greatest weakness. It cannot do that. Here are some of my favorite topics that illustrate the point:

In each of these cases, from the creationist viewpoint, God has planted fake evidence unnecessarily. They cannot explain any necessity for it. This is what destroys creationism's viability. They worship a deceptive (and therefore false) idol. Many creationists seem incapable of comprehending this point, which they take to mean that one is accusing God of being deceptive. No. The argument is that if there is a good God, He is not deceptive. This means that evidence-denying creationism has to be false.

By the way, I mentioned the origin of scripture above. Is creation a viable model for it? Most Biblical scholars would disagree, and would present very good evidence for their position - but maybe that is straying too much onto Ham's turf.

My advice - pick a few topics that you are very familiar with where creationism cannot explain the evidence - topics that include, from a creationist's point of view, fake evidence for which they cannot provide any explanation. Search the net for any attempts at 'explanation' or damage limitation by creationists. Ask them how their "It could be" speculations are testable. Become familiar with creationist "answers" and with the rebuttals of them.

If you want to discuss this with me, please get in touch. My email is my first name, a dot, my second name, at gmail dot com.

Good luck! :)

Barry Desborough