ID Presentation On My Campus

[Mr. Scott]

Ask whether snowflakes are intelligently designed.

When they say no, become incredulous. How can order, complexity, beauty and symmetry arise without a designer?

Yep! Click on the quote link from the "Annoying Creationist" thread to view my presentation of this idea:

"Information" from nothing -- the snowflake (actual photo of one below).

 

[Brian the Snail]

Ask how many peer-reviewed papers have been published on Intelligent Design.

 

[DrugFreeAlcoholic]

Okay, so here's an update. Minutes ago, I've spoken with the person in charge of the presentation. Ironically, she works in the biology department, but upfront told me "I don't believe in evolution." (She's just the lady that prepares equipment for experiments).

She is the sponsor of a club on the campus called the "Campus Crusade for Christ," and this presentation is just a regularly scheduled club meeting, where they will be playing a DVD. So it's not a guest speaker as I thought it would be (and kind of hoped), and chances are there won't be many non-members of the club attending, so it's not worth my time.

**** them, I'll just let them live in their supersitious beliefs. It won't harm anyone else, right?[/sarcasm]

Well, thanks for everyone's input. Wish I was a useful skeptic. >_>

 

[JJM]

Ask how many peer-reviewed papers have been published on Intelligent Design.

This is a sticky question. The Discovery Institute has a list of around 30 such articles. It can be mostly debunked; but that is a lengthy process. Then you get down to quibbling about the last couple publications.

Moreover, consider the case where an IDologist actually does publish a properly, peer-reviewed article. Then, we can be accused of "moving the goal-posts" when we point out that peer-review can be faulty; the process does not certify correctness (even in the best journals). People who are accustomed to the inviolate nature of scripture don't get the notion that scientific publications can be retracted, corrected, or ignored because the papers are wrong.

We have to revise our approach to the idea of peer review before we really confuse people.

 

[delphi_ote]

When you think about it, it's kind of creepy that they're all gathering to sit and watch a video just to have their mistaken view of reality collectively confirmed. Very cultish/brainwashingish.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

What DVD will they watch? I can bet it's from the Discovery institute. I'm sure there will be a discussion on how wonderful it was afterwards

 

[Keerax]

As to the possible movies to be seen, I recently discovered a movie series at Wal-Mart that was titled "Animals that defy evolution" or something to that effect. I can't believe I actually held that in my hands. I felt so dirty. >_<

 

[fishbob]

This is a sticky question. The Discovery Institute has a list of around 30 such articles. It can be mostly debunked; but that is a lengthy process. Then you get down to quibbling about the last couple publications.

Moreover, consider the case where an IDologist actually does publish a properly, peer-reviewed article. Then, we can be accused of "moving the goal-posts" when we point out that peer-review can be faulty; the process does not certify correctness (even in the best journals). People who are accustomed to the inviolate nature of scripture don't get the notion that scientific publications can be retracted, corrected, or ignored because the papers are wrong.

We have to revise our approach to the idea of peer review before we really confuse people.

Discovery Institute list

Not such a lengthy process after all. You can tell that these are junk by the opening remarks:

Meyer contends . . .
Behe sets forth . . .
Dembski argues . . .
Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig . . . employs the design-theoretic concepts . . . to elucidate . . .
Wells thus makes a case . . . .
Behe develops a critique . . . .
- ad nauseum -

NONE of them start with "so-and-so found".
NONE of them involve any actual new data or new observations.
ALL of them revolve around viewing the world through ID colored glasses.

So maybe I am moving the goal posts, or maybe just clarifying what should be expected in a scientific publication. Also, can't recall where, but at least one IDologist actually did publish proper peer-reviewed research - in which actual data was presented and discussed, and in which ID was not mentioned.

 

[joobz]

Okay, so here's an update. Minutes ago, I've spoken with the person in charge of the presentation. Ironically, she works in the biology department, but upfront told me "I don't believe in evolution." (She's just the lady that prepares equipment for experiments).

She is the sponsor of a club on the campus called the "Campus Crusade for Christ," and this presentation is just a regularly scheduled club meeting, where they will be playing a DVD. So it's not a guest speaker as I thought it would be (and kind of hoped), and chances are there won't be many non-members of the club attending, so it's not worth my time.

**** them, I'll just let them live in their supersitious beliefs. It won't harm anyone else, right?[/sarcasm]

Well, thanks for everyone's input. Wish I was a useful skeptic. >_>

Wow?!?

How did you first hear of the club meeting? Was it posted in a campus calander as a seminar? Were they deliberate in thier missrepresentation?

 

[Wavicle]

Okay, so here's an update. Minutes ago, I've spoken with the person in charge of the presentation. Ironically, she works in the biology department, but upfront told me "I don't believe in evolution." (She's just the lady that prepares equipment for experiments).

She is the sponsor of a club on the campus called the "Campus Crusade for Christ," and this presentation is just a regularly scheduled club meeting, where they will be playing a DVD. So it's not a guest speaker as I thought it would be (and kind of hoped), and chances are there won't be many non-members of the club attending, so it's not worth my time.

**** them, I'll just let them live in their supersitious beliefs. It won't harm anyone else, right?[/sarcasm]

Well, thanks for everyone's input. Wish I was a useful skeptic. >_>

Wow, the coincidence is just strange. A few years ago when I was in college our campus chapter of 'Crusade' also held a presentation on intelligent design. I wish I could remember the speaker's name, he was an astronomer if I remember correctly.

Oddly enough it was this talk that first led me to look seriously at the state of the arguments on the subject and ultimately led here (and other places). His arguments were all the same old thing:

0) When you see a watch on the ground, yadda yadda yadda, watchmaker, yadda yadda yadda, a bridge, yadda yadda yadda man yadda yadda yadda a Creator created life.
1) Life requires large sugar molecules, but only small sugars have ever been seen in nebulae and experiments.
2) The odds of the proteins for life coming together are smaller than a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a 747.
3) The universal constants are too perfect. The position of the earth relative to the sun is too perfect. The size of the earth is too perfect. It's impossible to conclude that this could have all just happened.
4) Proteins and sugars come in two chiralties, but only one is usable by life. Experiments always show both chiralties in roughly equal numbers. The wrong handed sugar or protein would destroy early life, ergo abiogenesis is impossible.
5) You can't take any piece of (insert favorite cellular structure here) out and still have a functional part. Hence it could not have evolved.

I don't recall this guy arguing for a young earth, simply that life was designed by God.

 

[ShowerComic]

How 'bout "who created the creator"? Since, by logical inference, the creator must be infinintely complex. Also, "are there more than one creator?" If they say no, there's only one, ask for the evidence.

Pointing out that the "Everything needs a Cause" argument is ignored when you get to God. Personally I like Greek Mythology in which the gods came from (were caused by) even higher beings called The Titans -- but that's just me.

 

[DrugFreeAlcoholic]

Wow?!?

How did you first hear of the club meeting? Was it posted in a campus calander as a seminar? Were they deliberate in thier missrepresentation?

I always knew the club existed. There's flyers all over the campus, but I can't say for sure if they were deliberately overselling it.

Oddly enough it was this talk that first led me to look seriously at the state of the arguments on the subject and ultimately led here (and other places).

I started off debating existence of god(s) and evolution/creation too. I've only recently gotten into the paranormal, occult, and superstitious (outside of religion), and quackery. Trying to be an "all-around skeptic," I suppose. Debunking religion is also what made me start reading books on logic and philosophy.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Thanks for the replies. I'll try to find out who the speaker is. I'm not sure what good that will do though.

You post was interesting but I really only wanted to address your first paragraph.

These sort of things are geared to help those with game show personalities - no offense intended. The ability to come up with a quick phrase or quip is far more important than facts.

If you want to go through with it I would look for one ridiculous thing in their line up, something you can parody and that you can do simply. Don't get sidetracked into discussing evolution, scientific method or even scepticism in general. Merely pick one point that makes them look stupid and hammer them on it. If you can make them look like intolerant idiots who can't answer a simple question you will probably have done more for all of us than if you had carefully laid out some real scientific facts.

It is a game of emotion. Not debate or fact.

 

[CapelDodger]

Trying to be an "all-around skeptic," I suppose. Debunking religion is also what made me start reading books on logic and philosophy.

Don't get bogged down in Philosophy; it's reputation and status are things to be sceptical of. Check out the greats (Mark Twain in particular) but the condensed versions are adequate. Mark Twain should be read simply for the sheer pleasure of it. Love that guy.

Case-studies of classic issues (such as homeopathy and spiritualism) are very educational. JREF is a magnificent resource for that. Mostly keep looking at what's going on around you, read the flyers, think outside a clique. And be particularly sceptical about ideas or arguments you feel comfortable with. Lecture ends .

 

[CapelDodger]

It is a game of emotion. Not debate or fact.

Absolutely. It's all about the monkey in us. There's an audience involved, and what you have to do is gain their sympathy. The professionals down there in the limelight already have the status, the slick button-pushing talk, and the body-language. You're some schmuck. You can't win them over, you can only turn them against the other guys. Bring out the bad in the professionals, get them off-script then keep them there with impeccable politeness until, at some magical point, they become the System, and you become a victim of the System. Which everybody can identify with.

It's a difficult task. I can work a crowd of maybe twenty, at a push.