Irrelevancies - The Proposed Betech-Slifkin Debate

Rabbi Slifkin writes:

Another reason why I refused to debate evolution with Dr. Betech was that such a debate is a charade, since it is a religious issue for him, not a scientific one. In science, one draws conclusions from the evidence, regardless of one's religious beliefs. In response, Dr. Betech was forced to say that he would agree to draw the requisite conclusions. But as I pointed out, of course he has to say that, but the question is whether he is trying to fool other people or himself. Perhaps he is like those people who, for religious reasons, refuse to accept that man landed on the moon, and find a way to wriggle out of any evidence for it.

All this is irrelevant as are most of the following comments by Rabbi Slifkin in his post. Dr. Betech invited Rabbi Slifkin to a protocolized debate, not a personal conversation. In a public debate, neither one of the protagonists is attempting to persuade their opponent. They are attempting to persuade the audience! Rabbi Slifkin refuses to debate Dr. Betech regarding evolutionary theory for one simple reason; he knows he will lose. It’s as simple as that. All this other stuff he writes about "requisite conclusions", "religious reasons" and "moon landings" is nothing but smoke and mirrors. It’s patent misdirection. It’s superfluous wording, meaningless jargon and fancy lingo specifically designed to avert your attention from the simple fact that Rabbi Slifkin cannot support Evolution.

Rabbi Slifkin writes:

So is Dr. Betech like a moon-landing denier, or not? Is he truly willing to draw honest conclusions from the evidence, even if the evidence is in favor of evolution, or will he just wriggle out of it? One way to clarify this is to ask him what those conclusions would actually be.

I just had a brainstorm. In order to clarify whether Dr. Betech is willing to draw honest conclusions from the evidence, why doesn’t Rabbi Slifkin actually debate him and see for himself?

Rabbi Slifkin writes:

...the question is not whether there are unanswered objections to evolution, but rather whether evolution or recent creation better addresses the available evidence. But this would mean developing a theory of recent creation and subjecting it to critical scrutiny (just as a detailed theory of evolution was developed and subjected to critical scrutiny). That's why Dr. Betech is terrified to do it.

This is a silly assertion. I, like Dr Betech, am also a creationist. I believe in a literal interpretation of maaseh bereishis. But I have never felt compelled to develop a "theory of recent creation" and subject it to critical scrutiny any more than I feel the need of developing a theory of, say, the origin of metallurgy and subjecting it to critical analysis. In both cases the Torah tells us precisely what happened (Creation was sudden and rapid via meta-natural processes and metallurgy was developed by one of Kayin’s great grandsons) and in both cases I have no reason to doubt the Torah’s account. Rabbi Slifkin doesn’t possess a theory of the origin of metallurgy or a theory of the origins of the collapsible tent or a theory of the origins of musical instruments. There’s no reason to. The Torah discusses these things openly and there is no reason to doubt them. If Rabbi Slifkin happens to doubt the Torah’s account of maaseh bereishis, he needs to develop the theory, not Dr. Betech.