Call for Evolutionists for radio show

Last Friday, Dec 3, we discussed this article on our half-hour 'Real Science Friday' show. We are interested in giving evolutionists the opportunity to call in and comment on either the article, or what we discussed on the radio. If anyone is interested, please reply here or feel free to contact me at fredw@usa.com. FYI, the host of the show, Bob Enyart, has some national exposure, having interviewed plenty of high profile names including Eugenie Scott, Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, etc, plus he has appeared on Bill Mahr's program, The Orielly Factor, Hannity & Combs, among others.

We believe the most efficient use of time would be for you to submit your question or comment via email beforehand with phone contact information, then we could call you directly to debate the question. I hope you understand the reason for this, that specialized "surprise" issues can make for boring radio if the opposing side needs to do some research to talk about it. This goes for both sides. Feel free to share your thoughts on this method. If we get some traction on this, we may make it a regular feature, perhaps calling the segment "Stump the Creationist". It makes for entertaining radio I believe for both sides, to have opposing views go at it! In fact when Enyart had a live TV broadcast back in the 90s, I believe it was the high volume of opposing debate that propelled his ratings to match Conan in several US markets.

I think this would be fun for everyone. We broadcast at 3pm MST on Friday on AM 670 (55KWatt). We have recently received encouraging news on the growing popularity of the show, and it now re-broadcasts Friday night at 11pm, and Saturdays at 8pm. It reaches most of Colorado and some adjacent states, plus all shows are archived at kgov.com. Because of my work constraints, I can't always do a live show, so chances are we would likely begin recording Friday's show somewhere around 12:30 to 1pm MST.

Look forward to your thoughts...

Fred Williams

Fred, I read your so called 15 points refuted article and that forces me to ask a few questions. Is this talk show a comedy program?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I'm curious about something. Do the scientists who call in get to preview your responses to their previously submitted question or comment, or are you the only one with advance notice of what the other person is going to say?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

For those considering this opportunity I think it is important to take a careful look at Fred's 15 points and understand what their target audience considers effective evidence and argumentation. Fred and Bob know what their audience wants and responds to, and so they give it them. Scientists know what the evidence seems to indicate about reality, but as scores of creation/evolution debates have shown, the skills necessary to make that kind of presentation play effectively to an evangelical audience are possessed by very few, maybe Ken Miller for one, who said it took weeks of careful preparation.Know your audience. If your intention is to push hard on the evidence you'll probably be disappointed with the result. My own suggestion would be to focus on creationist positions and proposals using the same approach creationists use on evolution, not because it's scientific but because it's what works with the target audience. But whatever you do, be nice, be positive, be informed, and have a plan and execute it.--Percy

Percy, this is easier said than done. I've been to debates where the scientist basically creamed the evangelist both on scientific and religious points but the end result was always the same. Religious folks will cheer for the evangelist and the more scientific minded folks will cheer for the scientist.I've come to believe that these debates are pointless. The supersitious will remain so and there is nothing we can do about it.

Except that apparently it doesn't, since you apparently do not propose to give advance warning of your answer.I would point out that as far as having advance warning goes that advantage would lie with you anyway, since you can find out what an evolutionist is going to say about any given topic by looking up the facts, whereas creationists are for obvious reasons rather less predictable. You know that they're going to say something silly, but the specific blunder or equivocation will vary wildly from creationist to creationist.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Fred's invitation might seem reminiscent of the poem that begins, "'Will you walk into my parlor?' said the Spider to the Fly," but I think we should leave those feelings aside. If you're interested in accepting the invitation then work constructively with Fred to make it work, otherwise it would be best to observe from the sidelines. For those who want to take potshots, please use the Peanut Gallery thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I find it strange that they want to have a debate on fossils on a radio show. How would this work being that the audience can not actually see the fossils that are being debated?

Edited by Panda, : typosEdited by Panda, : No reason given.

His first example was about as far as I got, but then that is good old Fred. He hasn't changed much over the years.Honestly, reading the first refutation I came away totally clueless about what it was Fred was even trying to refute.It is hard though to cram so many irrelevancies into one post, so gotta give him credit for that.I'd reply to Fred but then Moose would suspend me again because the only appropriate response I could think of was
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
."Huh?"

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

He is a proponent of the 'gish gallup', I expect.Is it possible for me to post a reply in the Peanut Gallery to a post in this thread?

You're that guy from that evolutionfairytale site, aren't you?Then I can think of one obvious problem with your suggestion. Based on your antics on that forum, what you would do is, the moment the evolutionist started proving you wrong, you'd hang up the phone, continue to make mistakes about science without anyone to refute you, and insult the evolutionist behind his back. 'Cos apparently you have no confidence in your ability to debate.Now, if you were to pledge not to do that ... then I and others could decide what trust to place in the word of a creationist.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

My only question is, if you're an engineer, Fred, and Bob is a pastor, which one of you is the actual scientist that will refute whatever is brought up? Who's the expert?So what's the point? It seems ridiculous to attempt a debate with an engineer and a pastor about evolutionary biology. Is either of you an evolutionary biologist?More to the point though, are your listeners really into taking a DJ's point of view about evolutionary biology? I think that concerns me more than two DJ's pretending to know something about evolutionary biology.BTW, if anyone is interested here's Bob Enyart's wiki page. Not a very Christ-like pastor if you ask me.

quote:

---

He was convicted for misdemeanor child abuse in 1994 after beating his girlfriend's child with a belt so hard that the beating broke the skin

---

Wow, nice guy.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

He is.For those interested in doing the chat show: here is a good example of how Fred Williams 'debates'.
I suggest people read that before making a final decision.

But it's a style of debate that mops the floor with evolutionist arguments.You hear this in different forms, but it is often said that one definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing while expecting something different to happen. We're no more going to convince an evangelical audience to embrace evolution then I'm going to teach my cat to love dogs.Do we really care what evangelical's believe? Does anyone really care whether evangelicals understand the science behind the 15 points that Fred claims to refute? I don't think so. I think all we really want is for them to stop interfering with public school science education. How would you make progress toward that goal in a creation/evolution debate?--Percy