Creationism Vs. Evolution: Principle of Communication Critique Paper

“What does the Evidence show- Creationism or Evolution?” was the title of the debate between Kent Hovind (Creation) and Professor Dave Farina (Evolution) accompanied by James (moderator) on his YouTube channel Modern-Day debate. The video was streamed last January of 21st 2020 using a virtual platform as the medium of the argument. The debate has an approximately one hour and fifty minutes duration which encapsulates the evidences that delineate and attest the probity of the underlying arguments and to debunk the proposed evidences of the opponent. This is a formal debate and as expected with this kind of communication, heated disputes and galvanizing arguments are commonly encountered. Nevertheless, with the nature of the argument, principles of communication can still be easily determined by critical analysis.

The most salient principle protruding the debate is Authenticity. Each side enormously contributed to the fact that they are attesting their arguments by being authentically defensive of what they believe in. In the debate, oscillating caprice is not present which is good because they are devout and adamant of the plausible and scientific facts encompassing their convictions. It is indispensable for authenticity to be demonstrative as it will be the cornerstone of one’s tenacity and truthfulness towards his proposed evidence. Another principle I observed is Active Listening, each one is given time to convey and repudiate evidence. Professor Dave clearly has this trait of listening that’s why his responses correspond on what is currently under dispute, however Kent Hovind digressed with the subject by inserting unnecessary analogy and tergiversating when he clearly doesn’t know the answer. Another principle I witnessed that is poorly done in the argument is non-judgmental. Kent Hovind doesn’t have this sense of principle as whenever Prof. Dave said something that disavowed his evidence, he got his SpongeBob puppet and started whacking it as a representation of his opponent. He insinuates that prof. Dave’s argument is absurd that he needs cerebral awakening which is totally judgmental and out of context. Professor Dave on the other hand, wants to refute passages from the Bible because that is the only thing Kent is proposing as the evidence which Kent refuses to do so. Even if we disagree on something, non-judgmental must still be manifested to avoid belligerent and unnecessary fights not apropos to the debate. Another principle that lacks the argument is No Assumption, by not actively listening, making so much irrelevant and unwanted assumptions seem prevalent. Prof. Dave’s proposed evidence on Evolution is debunked by Kent in a wrongfully inappropriate and assumptive way by saying that Humans and other eukaryotic organisms emanated from a rock and amoeba which is argumentatively incongruous because of inattention to prof. Dave in the first place. He assumed that evolutionary processes are ludicrous which just clearly show that he knows little about science and is reluctant to scientific evidences postulated by Prof. Dave. I can’t see a transparent trustworthiness and value difference in the debate since they debunked each other’s evidence by more substantive and logical evidence. Prof. Dave isn’t convinced by Ken’s way of using the Bible as the only means of proof and Kent’s perception about evolutionary processes is completely insane that he referred to as pseudoscience. Both participants show little to no value difference as to which the nature of communication is a debate, however it can still be manifested if all participants are receptive enough to engross in communication with candidness, no assumptions and no judgments.  

Even if all the principles are not conspicuous with this kind of communication, it still is effective because the elements and cycle of communication is present and the knowledge that people can acquire for enlightenment is beyond measure. This kind of communication gives us a clearer vision about the world around us that is based on facts, logic, and science. 

Reference of the Critiqued Debate:

https://youtu.be/leIGa-9c9xg