Fallacies in the Origins Debate: Gish Gallop

This is a peculiar kind of fallacy,  combining poison the well, ad hominem, and red herring all together in a cutesy deflection.

It is specifically used in origins debate, to dismiss points made by crestionists. Some origins subreddits even use the term in their rules.

What is it?  It was coined by Eugenie Scott, a common ancestry defender, atheist, and vocal opponent of creationism.

From her article in the the talk.origins faq, on How to debate a creationist.

"I think they recognize that they have a lot to lose in any other than the "Gish Gallop" format. Tough luck. I can't see any reason why evolutionists should make it easier for them to rally their troops.

If after all of this, you still think you want to debate a creationist, then let me give you some suggestions. First, don't bother defending evolution. Evolution is state of the art science, taught at every decent college and university in this country, including Brigham Young, Notre Dame, and Baylor. So why should you defend it? Tell your audience that there is plenty of information on evolution in the library, in university courses, and in scores of science journals. Creation "science" is the new kid on the block. Let's see if it fits the criteria of science, and secondly, if its claims and predictions stand up to scrutiny.

And then show the audience how creation science is a bust. Don't bother trying to explain something as complicated as evolution, although during your rebuttal you can straighten the audience out on the creationist's stupider claims."

She coined the phrase to dismiss the presentations  of  Duane Gish, an early promoter of creationism from the last century.  He would list multiple points in a debate format, and the complaint is that the evolutionist was overwhelmed with points, unable to give a cogent response to any.

From wiki:

The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott and named after the creationist Duane Gish

I personally met Duane Gish, and attended several debates, when academia still allowed that sort of thing (they use censorship,  now..).  He did have a wealth of scientific material and knowledge,  and conveyed it with sound logic.  I see the 'Gish Gallop!' accusation as an unfair and demeaning deflection, with no rational basis.  Here is why:

1. The debate formats are the real complaint.  Duane Gish would present as much facts and arguments as possible, in the allotted time.  The evolutionist debater would (allegedly) feel unable to rebut so many points in the shorter rebuttal time allotment.
2. Rather than deal with the ARGUMENTS and FACTS, the evolutionist debater found it much easier to dismiss it all, as a 'Gish Gallop!'
3. The irony i see is in the hypocrisy among 'Gish Gallop!' accusers, who often employ a similar tactic of flooding a 'debate' with irrelevant cut and pastes & off topic deflections.
4. Not every point can be made in a bumper  sticker soundbite. To dismiss everything, and complain of being overwhelmed by arguments,  is an admission that the rebuttal is impotent in it's response.

Duane Gish died in 2013, at 92 years of age.  The deflective smear that bears his name is a testament to his convincing, rational, and scientific arguments,  that elicited terror and dismissal from his opponents.

A personal note:
I became a creationist after attending debates with Duane Gish and Henry Morris,  in 1974.  Coming from a diverse scientific background in physics,  chemistry, and mathematics,  i was impressed with the facts and arguments that these debaters displayed.  I continued in origins, even joining the 'debate' on talk.origins in the 90s.  When i am accused of 'Gish Gallop!' (and anyone who engages in this debate will be) , i am reminded  of the warmth, wit, humor, and crushing rationality of this great father of modern scientific creationism.