This is the online edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th Edition (2008), by Dr. Walt Brown. It is designed to be read online.
Copyright © 1995–2008, Center for Scientific Creation. All rights reserved.
Click here to order the hardbound print edition of this online book.
What Is the Written Debate Offer?
The following offer is for a written, scientific debate on the creation-evolution issue. It addresses a longstanding desire by the public for a comprehensive and understandable comparison of the two main explanations for how everything began—a heated issue in which little constructive dialogue has occurred. Scientific disagreements can and should be discussed without acrimony.
Notice several things about this sincere and fair offer on pages 425–426. Evolutionists who disagree with these proposed debate procedures but wish to participate can propose their own suggestions for a written, strictly scientific debate. They must sign a statement, as I will, that they will abide by the editor’s decisions resolving disagreements about procedures.
However, the debate must be restricted to science and avoid religion, a broader, more complex, and less-structured subject. (Because I am not a theologian, I will not debate those topics. My focus is on the scientific evidence relating to origins.) Scientific methodology is also better understood by more people. Indeed, methods for reaching religious conclusions are diverse, subjective, and cultural. Religious disagreements have been with us for thousands of years. A purely scientific debate will be broad enough.
Many can participate on the evolutionist side. Only the lead evolutionist must hold a doctorate in either applied or basic sciences. Those who wish to participate but have no formal qualifications may recruit a lead evolutionist and offer their services to the evolutionist side. (A lack of recognized qualifications does not mean that a person has nothing to contribute. However, without them, many readers might dismiss that side’s case or blame a poor performance, not on a weak case, but on a lack of scientific qualifications.)
Once a lead evolutionist agrees to participate, we will search for and select an editor associated with a large, neutral publisher. I am confident that many publishers will be interested. Those invited may conclude that one or both sides have not demonstrated the ability to produce a credible, unemotional, and thorough case, understandable to most readers. If so, sales of the final, book-length debate would suffer. Sales, after all, are a publisher’s main concern. Editors and publishers may also conclude that one side is unprepared to address all relevant disciplines in the creation-evolution issue: life sciences, astronomical sciences, earth sciences, physical sciences, and their many subdisciplines. If so, the editor and publisher might ask one side to add qualified people to its side or withdraw.
The editor/publisher may require both sides of the debate to sign a contract to complete the manuscript as described in this offer. Because the publisher has “first right of refusal” and makes no commitment to publish the completed debate, the publisher has much to gain with little risk.