Gish and creationism at Murray State: a child's garden of verses - biochemist Duane T. Gish

On February 25, Duane T. Gish, loudly touting his Berkeley Ph.D. in biochemistry and his having rubbed shoulders with Nobel laureates, participated in a "debate" on evolution vs. creationism, at Murray State University, in Murray, Kentucky. According to the sponsors, Gish "won" the debate. As an interested observer to most of the events surrounding this spectacle, I was not enlightened, but entertained. based on the promotions for the heavily advertised "debate," one would have expected an evening of scientific discussion, free from philosophy or theology. In fact, we got showmanship, less effective than the "Psychic Hot Line," but adequate to provide rationalizations for the faithful.

According to what we were told, it all started in the mind of a Protestant minister named Mark Randall, who had a vision. He dreamed of being able to bring Gish, the author of several tracts proclaiming the "scientific" basis of creationism, from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in a modest suburb of San Diego, to Murray State University, so that he could explain his views on creation "science." When he found out Gish's fee is only $300, he was delighted and set about arranging a visit. He put up fliers around campus, offering $100 to a student who could find a professor to debate Gish. There were no takers.

Several of us - Murray State University Science faculty and other, interested parties - wrote a letter to the student paper explaining why we did not believe such a show was appropriate for serious scientific discussion, and why Gish could not be trusted to be scientific, based on his record. The offer was upped to $500, to whomever would 'debate' Gish, and another $500, if the debater could "win" (as defined by audience response). An Assistant Professor of History, Dr. William Schell, took the challenge (and the $500), and the 'debate' was on. Gish responded to our letter, loudly proclaiming his credentials as a biochemist (while complaining that our comments against him were ad hominem). A further response of mine to his published complaints and questions was heavily "edited" (not to say censored) by the student paper, so that it was more or less gibberish by the time it appeared in print.

Murray State University is in the far western part of Kentucky, an area called the "Purchase" (because President Jackson purchased it from American Indians). This region was confederate in sympathy during the Civil War, and has been lagging behind the rest of the nation ever since, by any measurement. The educational level of the citizens is much below the national average, both in percentage of college graduates and in high school graduates. As a result, income is well below the national average. Basketball, tobacco, and Protestant religion, in that order, hold oppressive sway over the region. The local citizenry allow maximal personal freedom for smoking and gun ownership (including the carrying of concealed weapons), but little or none in any other area. (In order to have a beer with one's pizza, it is necessary to drive ten miles south, into Tennessee, where five of the first seven businesses one meets are night clubs, cafes, or stores that sell alcohol.) The university is an upgraded teacher's college, which won its "university" designation during the explosion of such nominal improvement in mid century. The campus focuses on agriculture, education, and business, and few students major in any of the traditional arts or sciences (those who do are of strikingly high quality, however, representing a small, intellectual elite).

The "debate" was held in the grand ballroom of the student center, which may be the biggest room now available in the county. Like most such events, the organizers had not thought of body heat, and the room became oppressively hot as soon as it filled, which it did. I was astonished that the area in which I was sitting was perhaps forty percent children, ages nine to sixteen or so. Since it had been advertised as strictly "scientific," how was it possible that so many children were interested in such things as the second law of thermodynamics? Gish talks a lot about this law, claiming that entropy denies the possibility of evolution. Despite the fact that he must have taken courses in thermodynamics at Berkeley, he continues to talk about entropy, as Isaac Asimov (another biochemist), has said, "at the kindergarten level."

Gish led off, and the format was to be one hour for him, one hour for Dr. Schell, twenty minutes of rebuttal each, followed by shorter rebuttals. This was designed, despite starting at 7 PM, to last until wall after 10 PM, on a school night. (Those children should be home doing homework, and sleeping!) This was child abuse. Gish spent over half an hour talking about the big bang theory of the universe's origin, then about twenty minutes on the origin of life, and finally about fifteen minutes on evolution, the stated topic.

Biochemistry is seen by many of us as fundamental to a modern understanding of evolution. Most important are some of the discoveries since Gish's Ph.D., but he provided no biochemical discussion except his silliness about entropy. Gish never mentioned any of the most important recent biochemical discoveries relating to evolution, despite the fact that a few of these (e.g., Numa's work on protein structure and Cech's work on ribozymes) were pointed out to him before his presentation in a personal letter. (In fact, his remarks on enzymes were totally obviated by the discovery of ribozymes.) He began with lengthy remarks about the Murray State basketball team, and ended each of his rebuttals with a direct biblical quote (to standing ovations).