The Unethical Tactics of the Evolution Attack Dogs: P.Z. Myers and Attitudes of Evolutionists in Response to the Bergman-Gutsick Gibbon Debate

What this paper is about: The common response of evolutionists to valid evidence opposing evolution is often not rational. Instead of a rational response, they resort to ridicule and name calling. I wrote an entire chapter documenting this problem. 1An example is, instead of, in an attempt to document abiogenesis by mentioning the Urey-Miller experiment performed by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller in 1952, evolutionists resort to calling the creationist “stupid,” a “creationist liar”, and an “imbecile moron creationist.” This response hardly helps the evolutionists case. Rather it greatly hurts their case. Name calling is often resorted to out of frustration due to an inability to respond to creationists claims

I recently had a debate titled Does the Human Fossil Record Support Human Evolution? The debate analyzed the claims of evolutionists that the fossils support the theory that humans evolved from a common ancestor of humans and chimps. My debate opponent was the enormously popular Erika “Gutsick Gibbon” (pseudonym), a Ph.D. student in paleontology. Erika was a young-Earth creationist educated at a Christian school from kindergarten to eighth grade. She then went to a secular high school where she was exposed to evolution in her textbooks, causing her to reject her creation belief. 2 Many aggressive evolutionists were once creationists. 3 This partly explains her strong interest in the issue. It also supports the common poor education about this issue in many, if not most, Christian schools. Erika related that her parents—her father was a medical doctor— were some form of creationists.

So far, the Gutsick v. Bergman debate has had over 80,000 views on YouTube. Erika was in every way polite, respectful, and considerate in presenting her position, which was well thought out and well illustrated. She surprised me with how well read she was on many topics. The host, Donny Budinsky, it appeared to me, was a little hard on me and, in contrast, very accommodating of Erika.

Erika’s main argument was to describe several fossils that she claimed gave evidence of primates that could walk upright, either occasionally or as their main mode of traveling. Her argument was that these examples were evidence of evolution from the quadrupedal mode, as a chimp uses, to the bipedal mode of transportation used by humans. My response was that I had no problem with some nonhuman primate that could walk upright. I then discussed the problem of genetically converting quadrupedal to bipedal locomotion by chance evolution.

In short, she believed on faith that the fossils she presented proved human evolution, where I felt her evidence only showed that some primates could walk upright, something very different than proving chimps and humans have a common ancestor that looked something like a chimp. I have authored a large book that documents, by citing over several thousand references to the professional paleontological literature, the problems with the human fossil record. 4 Thus, I felt to repeat the Dr. So-and-So made some claim against one interpretation of a claimed prehuman fossil and then quote another paleontologist who countered his claim would not result in a productive debate. Therefore, I decided to document the fact that none of the claimed missing links are actually evidence of human evolution because evolution has no viable mechanism to cause macroevolutionary change.

I first showed that the evidence used to accept human evolution for the first century since the publication of the Origin of Species in 1959 has all been decisively refuted by science, yet was still accepted as solid proof that hydrogen-to-human evolution was an unequivocal fact. Next, I documented that the classical view of human evolution, called The Progression, from some common ancestor to modern man was rejected, and in its place was a set of different primates and not a progression leading up to humans (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).

Lastly, I documented that no viable genetic mechanism exists for evolution from molecules to man, a major problem that Darwin had and that still exists today. The mechanism claimed today, damage to the genome, called mutations, is the primary source of the new genetic variation that natural selection selects from to cause evolution from prokaryotes to humans. 5 Erika was unable to refute any of the information I presented; thus, her fossil discussion was not supportive of so-called missing links from our theoretical common ancestor to modern man.

Figure 3 illustrates the new arrangement of the fossils that are purported to support human evolution. This new family tree was based on hundreds of fossils uncovered during the last five decades. It places the once claimed human ancestors in four distinct species, namely Homo, Paranthropus, Australopithecus, and Ardipithecus with no claims of evolution from one species to another. 6, 7

Comments About My Debate Performance

In the 4.5-hour debate, I likely made at least one mistake in my presentation and was curious to determine if someone else caught any actual errors. I was also very interested in the responses to my presentation, which had over 80,000 views.

The 2,251 comments posted in the comment section of the YouTube debate strongly favored her and often mocked my presentation. It is clear that most were committed evolutionists who did not understand or comprehend my PowerPoint presentation. If, in a debate, an evolutionist lacks evidence, in my experience, they commonly resort to name calling. In this case most of the comments were name calling which is a common response for Darwinists and does not give their views credibility. I authored an entire chapter covering the common response of evolutionists is, instead of mustering solid arguments they resort to ridicule and name calling. 1 Some typical examples from the YouTube comments section are presented here, uncorrected for spelling, punctuation, and grammar:

• You can be certain that he will go back to his echo chamber and claim victory. They are exactly like flat earthers.
• This was an absolute beat down. Basically 100 gibbons vs one Neanderthal
• I want to say as someone who grew up within a young earth creationist household, I accepted evolution a decade ago, and this debate actually gave me so much good information I had been unaware of and am 4even more convinced thanks to the evidence presented by you Erika. And the great part is learning this was fun! It is always frustrating when people are presented with information and dig in their heels when they could otherwise enjoy the facts as they come and be excited by learning

Examples of positive comments:

• Dr. Bergman acknowledged the existence of these old bones, but Erika never demonstrated HOW they could be construed as "Human Transitions." She never stated what tools and social evidence was found along with the bones. Being "Human" is more than anatomical; it’s behavioral as well.
• Dr. Bergman clearly asked her what mechanism she had to demonstrate that these were "Transitional." Just pointing at similar features doesn't cut it. You need a mechanism to make the major changes occur.

Another common example of the dominance of derogatory comments by supporters of evolution is Erika’s debate with Kent Hovind titled “Epic Debate: Gutsick Gibbon Vs Kent Hovind | Human Evolution | Podcast.” 8 The debate video had 234 views and 11,240 comments, the vast majority of which were negative about Kent Hovind, such as the following (again, with spelling, punctuation, and grammar uncorrected):

• Kent Hovind has gone from being a man who spoke passionately about what he believed in to a sad old grouch debating whoever he can find in a desperate attempt to stay relevant. Well done Erika for kicking his ass, just like everyone else has
• Gibbon's opening statement was so well-thought out, so descriptive, and with his third sentence, you can tell Hovind didn't listen to a darn syllable of it.
• Creationists never win debates, but this one is such a spectacular loss haha. Erika is fantastic.
• I am entertained by the imbecil creationist

I also looked for reviews of my debate with Erika on the internet and found several. None of the reviews I read made any claims of errors in my presentation. By far the most common response was mocking the creation worldview and me as well. The opposition took several forms. Some comments were respectful but were poor arguments. Some do not address the issue but generally denigrate young-Earth creationists. Some were appallingly nasty. One review that stands out was not a review but lambasted the creationists in general and my performance specifically in the debate with Paul Myers, a name he does not use, preferring to go by P.Z. Myers instead. He is an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota–Morris. I also, many years ago, had debated him in a live debate in Minnesota. The following is a summary of my debate with Erika and my responses to his “review.”

P.Z. Myers’s Review of the Gutsick Gibbons vs. Bergman Debate

His “review of the debate,” indented below, was predictably nasty, consisting mostly of name-calling, which was a stark contrast to Erika’s performance.9

Bergman, as I predicted, was a sloppy mess with a scattershot collection of slides that were mostly off- topic and irrelevant, and was [sic] full of wrong examples that didn’t make his case. Would you believe he talked about Nebraska Man, a hoary old chestnut of tabloid excess that never had the support of the scientific community, presented alongside Piltdown Man as evidence that the fossil record was fake?

My response: I mentioned the major claims used by evolutionists to prove their worldview as fact, all of which have been credibly rejected today. My point was that these examples were touted as irrefutable evidence for hydrogen-to-human evolution. As a result of this now-discredited evidence, evolution as fact was taught in the textbooks and used in court cases, including the Scopes Trial, as irrefutable proof. My point was, as was true for the last century, the evidence for evolution likewise will continue to be demolished, and many scientists will continue to believe fervently in evolution as defined above. Myers totally distorted my testimony.

How about the claim that Australopithecines were just the bones of pygmies?

He implied that I claimed this, which I clearly did not. I only mentioned that some authorities took this position. In the quotes below, Myers’s name-calling is highlighted in italics:

But I almost gave up in the first few minutes, before either had a chance to speak, when the screen loaded and there across the top in big capital letters was the banner “STANDING FOR TRUTH BIBLICAL MINISTRIES” with the logo for that disgraceful organization popping up throughout. The moderator/host was that smug twit, Donny Budinsky, a hardcore young-Earth creationist with no education in science, geology, paleontology, or evolutionary biology, who promotes these inane “debates” between creationists and sane evolutionary biologists. WHY? This was a promotional event for the dumbest collection of ignorant yahoos on YouTube. These are terrible people, and yet so many science educators will voluntarily send traffic their way, and, by the way, platform dogmatic buffoons like Jerry Bergman.

…We don’t need grifting yahoos like Donny Budinsky to organize and host these “debates,” and if you ditch mind-numbing parasites like Bergman, you don’t even have to waste time on them — Erika had a robust, informative 45 minutes of science talk imbedded in the superfluous, distracting garbage of the Jerry and Donny Show, with an ad for creationism layered on top.

…I despise debates, but even worse are debates that donate unwarranted attention and respect to lying apologists for anti-scientific claims. Stop it, everyone.”

My Response to Meyers’ Rant

My main comment is that I would never expect such ranting from an adult PhD college professor. He responded to none of the material I included in my presentation. His behavior is more like what I would expect from a poorly educated lower-class adolescent.

Select comments from readers of Myers’s website below are taken from his website; 8frequent misspellings were corrected; name-calling is highlighted in italics:

• …her part in a video, …. sounds interesting, but I don’t want to see those [creationists] liars
• …regarding debating Xian charlatans – it has always been thus debating Muslim fundie charlatans, as they only accept a “debate” if the host / moderator is one of them. It is not the ordinary Muslims (or Xians) I despise, it is the dishonest propagandists. May the Fenris Wolf take them.
• Alternatively, you can turn the creationists’ garbage against them.
• This is why you never debate these people (there is no intellectual difference between fascists and creationists).
• The purpose is fundraising and in-group social reinforcement for the creationists. It has nothing to do with “debate.” It’s just pro-wrestling and merch sales, with science cast as the heel.
• And on the specific subject of the “debate,” the fact remains that the fossil record, skeletal remains, genomic analysis, and other lines of evidence necessarily leave unanswered questions about hominin evolution but completely and utterly contradict YEC.
• I long ago refused to engage with creationists. …all we get are begets and sins and centuries of blood-stained history. Nothing at all useful. You’d think that if their god really loved us, he would’ve salted in some clues as to how the world actually works.
• I’m with Akira and Thought slime….A “debate” is not something you can have with fascists or creationists. Their worldview is so twisted that there’s no way you are going to change their minds.
• I just don’t have the patience to argue with idiots.
• Indeed, and these ridiculous events are the only chance a scientist has to reach that audience. Such is the bubble that Christians have built around themselves. Mockery and tearing apart the foundations of their creed is far more effective.
• As for effectiveness, I can think of nothing that shuts down humans faster than making fun of them. Erika … probably read all of these hot takes before in the aftermath of the Bill Nye - Creation Museum debate. … she isn’t as famous as Bill Nye, so she isn’t propping up their idiocy with a chance to declare victory on a celebrity.
• I just don’t have the patience to argue with idiots.
• We’ve been arguing with idiots for decades now.
• And here we …living in a failing democracy, currently being run by Fascists in the service of the Oligarchies. While being supported by almost half the population, the MAGAs and their associates.
• I’m all out of patience with the idiots these days, too!!!
• The state I live in has decided to hand out money meant for public schools to nonpublic schools.
• … trying to talk over each other with meaningless emotional appeals. Internet debates (and any discussion with Xian terrorists) are like trying to reason with a rattlesnake.
• How do you debate someone who is allowed to use “it was magic” as a legitimate explanation in their favor?
• At a certain level of ignorance, one gets impervious to any kind of reasoning.
• The problem is, a robust percentage of the population is now capable of believing absolutely anything, and their hallucinations are getting wilder and wilder as time passes. Apart from their self-harming behaviors (no-vaxx, weird diets, bleach gargling, what have you), they are easily manipulated by whoever finds it convenient to do so. A new generation of useful idiots, if you will.
• … knuckle-dragging mouth-breather Xian terrorist maggots I find that: ‘logic eludes them.’
• I have seen multiple comments here and elsewhere along the lines of “we have to deal with such stupid/ignorant/irrational people now”. …When were humans not faced with dealing with other humans who were stupid, ignorant, or irrational? The dumb ideas need to be stomped on with gusto.
• Seriously, what would you do in case like that, especially if that guy is anywhere near a sharp, metal tool?

From Rate My Professors

Curious about P.Z. Myer’s role as a professor, I looked up the public online comments on Rate My Professor. Select comments from his students include that he indoctrinates his students in evolution and against the creationism worldview. As is common, his student reviews were mixed but reveal that he manifested what can only be described as unmitigated hate for anyone who has the audacity to question his worldview.10

The following are unedited comments taken from the Rate My Professors website regarding Paul Myers as a professor,8 with emphasis added in italics.

• I fell asleep in almost every lecture but easily got an A by looking back at the note slides and the textbook
• His connection with his students is very poor.
• Would never take a class with this man again after this experience. For a "fun change in pace," he assigned a five-question exam all essay. He expected each question to be answered in no less than two pages. The questions he asked were more suited for an ethics class and the majority of them were offensive. Would not recommend.
• Prof Myers is heavily engaged in anti-creationism which is great, but he is apparently 'too important' to substantively engage with students even in office hours. Luckily the material isn't too challenging but he seems lazy about writing tests and informing us what's in them.
• PZ Myers, very famous...has made numerous appearances everywhere, especially on the evolution vs creationism thing
• Interesting character. Very into anti-creationism. He can teach the course so that you want to learn. Not too hard, not too easy. One thing is he is always busy, always. Very hard to find him for office hours. 8 Otherwise, if you are a liberal person, you will like this prof. If you are conservative, you will want to strangle him in the first week.
• I learned some useful concepts from the readings, but the professor is arrogant and preachy. He dismisses views he disagrees with instead of trying to understand and encourage reasonable disagreement.
• This guy sucked. PZ is full of himself because he is mildly famous, but he's lost his touch. He is a poor lecturer, he is sarcastic and demeaning, and rather than teaching better, he just curves grades.
• He locks himself in his office and won't answer his students knocks. His grading is INCREDIBLY inconsistent!
• I hope to never have this professor again. The scope of the class was to have 4 quizzes and 4 tests. I liked that idea, the quizzes being the benchmarks for how well you're doing and will help on the test. However, there were no quizzes, just tests for 100% of the grade. Professor is lazy and has terrible tests. Take someone else.
• He's very opinionated.
• Wasn't organized. The syllabus was from the previous semester, and he made significant changes, making it hard to know what was going on. This class was the most random class ever. The tests were on things barely covered or not covered in class.
• P.Z. Myers is awesome! He's really famous so it’s like having a celebrity in class! He's up there on the news with [atheists] Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne.
• Alright this guy is sweet as hell, frank as hell and very good with words. He runs a popular blog and has been featured on several documentaries and gives talks everywhere.

My Conclusions About Myers Teaching Religion and The Debate with Erika

It is obvious that Myers teaches religion in his class. Specifically, he teaches against the creation worldview, which is legal; but the courts have ruled in over 200 cases that it is illegal to present information in favor of creation. In other words, as a result, he teaches students what to think, not how to think, which is what should be taught. This is clearly indoctrination which is similar to the Nazi policy of indoctrinating students that Jews are bad people trying to take over the world and must be stopped to save the Aryan race.

The debate with Erika also argues for detailed discussion in Christian schools of why evolution, as defined in this paper, did not, and could not, occur. Her evidence is controversial but not unequivocal. Erika has recently moved from being a theistic evolutionist to being an agnostic.

The other upload of the debate I had with Erika is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyoioiM7DqI&t=4404s This one has more positive comments from creationists. Erika's subscriber base is 99% evolutionist, so those comments tend to be negative towards the creation worldview.

• 1a1bBergman, J. (2024) Chapter 2 “The Name Calling Problem pp 42-78 in Silencing the Darwin Skeptics 2nd edition Leafcutter Press. Southworth, WA 2024.
• 2Godless Engineer (2020 Jan 03) How Gutsick Gibbon Erika Left Young Earth Creationism, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xTea7d5dtY  
• 3Bergman J (2019) Darwinism is the Doorway to Atheism, Leafcutter Press, Southworth, WA.
• 4Bergman J, Line P, Tomkins J, Biddle D (2021) Apes as Ancestors: Examining the Claims About Human Evolution, Bartlett Publishing, Tulsa, OK.
• 5Bergman J (2019) Science is the Doorway to Creation: Nobel Laureates and Other Eminent Scientists Who Reject Orthodox Darwinism, ed. Kevin Wirth, Leafcutter Press, Southworth, WA.
• 6Bergman J (2009) The Ape-to-human progression: The most common icon is a fraud, J Creation 23(3):16–20.
• 7

  Bergman J (2024 Dec 04) Time to unlearn the evolutionary march of human progress. New discovery adds more evidence against the human evolution progression. Creation Evolution Headlines https://crev.info/2024/12/time-to-unlearn-the-evolutionary-march-of-human-progress/  

• 8a8b

  Modern-Day Debate, “Epic Debate: Gutsick Gibbon Vs Kent Hovind | Human Evolution | Podcast,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXFojsRxJLg  

• 9Myers PZ (2025 May 18) Stop letting creationists host your ideas, Pharyngula: Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal, https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2025/05/18/stop-letting- creationists-host-your-ideas/
• 10

  Rate My Professors, Paul Myers, https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/professor/123513