• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ID Presentation On My Campus

DrugFreeAlcoholic

Student
D
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
46
Two weeks from now, there's going to be an hour-long presentation on my campus that will present the "scientific" possibility of a creator. I'm not expecting any ground-breaking arguments or even any new arguments that I haven't heard already. I'll be expecting the antrophic argument (which I'll say is every bit as consistent with ID as it is with solipsism, or a SIMS game), arguments from Behe, Paley, and Dembski.

If there is a question and answer session at the end, I would like to throw a few monkey-wrenches into their presentation. What questions should I ask them? Should I bother pointing out scientific or logic flaws, or just ask them very critical questions that exposes ID as a quack, superstitious belief?
 
DrugFreeAlcoholic said:
Two weeks from now, there's going to be an hour-long presentation on my campus that will present the "scientific" possibility of a creator. I'm not expecting any ground-breaking arguments or even any new arguments that I haven't heard already. I'll be expecting the antrophic argument (which I'll say is every bit as consistent with ID as it is with solipsism, or a SIMS game), arguments from Behe, Paley, and Dembski.

If there is a question and answer session at the end, I would like to throw a few monkey-wrenches into their presentation. What questions should I ask them? Should I bother pointing out scientific or logic flaws, or just ask them very critical questions that exposes ID as a quack, superstitious belief?
Click to expand...
If I was going to bring up any fact, I'd bring up the fact that Behe testified under oath that a definition of scientific theory that includes Intelligent Design also includes astrology.
 
delphi_ote said:
If I was going to bring up any fact, I'd bring up the fact that Behe testified under oath that a definition of scientific theory that includes Intelligent Design also includes astrology.
Click to expand...
That is a fine answer to a difficult question (especially problematic since we don't know which particular arguments will be made).

My, less good, suggestion is to point out that ID is based on an argument from incredulity; and ask if they have any positive, physical evidence in favor of their position. Unfortunately, they think their handwaving fills that bill.

The audience is usually disposed to accept the creationist answers to such questions, and may not appreciate the important fact that astrology is ridiculous.
 
Is there a flyer or something that outlines their arguments? Are they going to use the "too complex" argument? Or the one that states that something won't work if just one bit isn't present? You are already aware of these behe and irreducible complexity arguments. These have all been debunked thoroughly:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

If you know what they are going to present, then you can formulate some questions. Do you know WHO will be presenting?

If they are walking these tired old canards out, then you can ask why they presenting on topics that are already debunked.

You can say the flagellum DOES work without such and such parts, and have worked on such and such microbe that way, although just not as well as on the microbe they are presenting.
Summary of the evolutionary model for the origin of the flagellum, showing the six major stages and key intermediates.
Click to expand...

Ask them why they ignore that information.

It would just help to know who is presenting and on what exactly in advance.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
{snip} If they are walking these tired old canards out, then you can ask why they presenting on topics that are already debunked.

You can say the flagellum DOES work without such and such parts, and have worked on such and such microbe that way, although just not as well as on the microbe they are presenting.

Ask them why they ignore that information. ...
Click to expand...
I like this one, too.
 
Remember that you're going to be in front of a mostly unsympathetic audience. If you want to make an impression on the few fence-sitters that might be around, try to keep it short, simple, and clear.

Oh, and if they're not YECs, one simple and fun way to drive a wedge between them and their sympathetic audience might be to ask for a scientific estimation of the Earth's age. :D
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Ask the speaker to explain endogenous retroviruses.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/7/7723/67027

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

Don't forget about pseudogenes. Hell, take an hour of your time and read Edward Max's article here. Also: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

The molecular homologies between species closes the case for common descent, and a further investigation of DNA reveals one hell of an incompetent designer.

Ask them why the designer decided to make only around 1% of the human genome actually code for proteins, and why the vast majority is non-functional junk. They have to give a scientific explanation of this, and remind them that appealing to the whim of the unknown designer, who works through unknown mechanisms is not a scientific answer. I suggest you read the two links I provided above, so that you know how evolutionary theory can explain these phenomenons. Their answer needs to show why the ev. explanation is wrong, and why their's is better/more coherent. Ask for peer-reviewed literature.
 
Last edited:
Ask them to explain things like anencephaly, or any congenital defects for that matter.

What is their "scientific god" explanation for giving mothers babies with down syndrome, or babies missing entire heart valves so they don't survive beyond birth.

Any news on who the presenter is yet?

I've read up on some websites that claim to have scientific proof of god.

Circular reasons, like the universe began-therefore there is a creator. Um, or life is eternal (no beginning), therefore there is a god.

Or, something has to come from somewhere, so it was god that made all things, since you can't have something come from nowhere.

And a baby is so beautiful that it must have been designed... again ignoring the fact that not ALL babies are designed so perfectly beautiful every time.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html


And yet another site, with the old canards:

The concept, design, and intricate details of our world necessitate an intelligent designer.
Click to expand...

Jesus’ miracles were witnessed by many and were documented redundantly for additional corroboration. He was seen by at least 500 people after His resurrection. He was seen ascending into heaven.
Click to expand...

Anectdotal evidence is always proof to believers. No matter that anyone can write that a hundred million people SAW a unicorn ascend into some kind of heaven. I did see it, and so did a hundred million of my neighbors!! If you don't believe me, then you're going to that bad place where you burn forever.
 
Last edited:
Ah! Monsters from the ID! They don't make movies like that anymore!


You might ask which particular creator they think is the most probable and what evidence they base their conclusions on.
FSM? Yaweh? Allah? Bokonon? Kronos?
Fundamentalist Christians merely despise atheists. They LOATHE fundamentalist Muslims. Wear a djellabah.
 
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.
 
Thanks for the replies. I'll try to find out who the speaker is. I'm not sure what good that will do though.

Also, I don't think I should get into the deep scientific details like retroviruses. I would rather point out logic errors or philosophical problems like how the antrophic argument is every bit as consistent with ID as it is solipism (some people will hand wave that away in their minds and dismiss it as an absurd impossibility, not even thinking it fits the evidence just as well as ID (sucks to be brainwashed, huh?)). Pointing out these type of errors will help them evalute other quack claims, whereas things like retroviruses can only help them refute ID and creationism.

While he's answering these questions, and makes more fallacies or errors of fact, should I cut him off while he's talking to point these out, or wait until he finishes? Chances are he'll take maybe a whole minute or two and not even answer my question (you know how quacks are, they shift goal posts and commit the red herring fallacy, or they have nothing of consequence to say and elide that in rhetoric), but if I politely wait until he's finished, I, and the audience will have forgotten the earlier fallacies he's made and I probably won't have the time to point every one of them out. The first option also makes me, and perhaps skeptics, look like asses.
 
Last edited:
You are correct: this is a no-win scenario. If you wait till the end to point out the mistakes and fallacies, you won't have time to cover them all or you will forget some, giving those so inclined to believe that you concede the points you haven't talked about as correct. If you interrupt in order to keep the mistaken arguments from piling up, you look like an ass or that you are afraid to let the other guy speak. Outside of a strict debating frame (i.e. with a clear time limit, a neutral moderator to keep the argument from derailing or moving the goalposts, etc.), I don't think it's the kind of situation you can "win".
 
If it's like most ID discussions I've heard, you could say something along these lines:

"There is a mountain of consistent scientific evidence that supports evolution. Is there any strong positive scientific evidence that Intelligent Design is correct, instead of the negative arguments you present that purportedly undermine evolution?"
 
It will help immensely to know the speaker and the arguments before you go in.

That will allow you to focus on a small area that will allow you to speak your point in just a few seconds, when you actually might get a chance to really trounce him that just once.

I'm speaking from experience :)

Go in prepared, that's all I can say, or you will just be that one unwilling audience member that ends up trying to formulate that one good argument that is in context of the whole thing.

In context is best, unless you really know everything about ID and creation science going into it. That is really too broad, and will leave you scrambling.

Be prepared, and keep it short with one or two really good points, in question form, to nail him at that one opportune moment. Otherwise, it will be all for naught, and you'll be just seen as a troll-type with very few really good points.

Don't go in to win or take him/them down, just to stump with something good. Don't be aggressive.

Do come with a smart zinger, and wait for some kind of answer. Then maybe hit with another zinger to drive your point home. Short, to the point, and non-aggressive. Good questions will be key, not really just your own points. Make the question make the point.
 
Last edited:
Ask whether snowflakes are intelligently designed.

When they say no, become incredulous. How can order, complexity, beauty and symmetry arise without a designer?
 
Dr Adequate said:
Ask whether snowflakes are intelligently designed.

When they say no, become incredulous. How can order, complexity, beauty and symmetry arise without a designer?
Click to expand...
As that is a perfect example, we are again only speculating on the speaker's premise.

Maybe he/they will say yes, since clouds are designed (in their minds) for certain purposes, and therefore, so are snowflakes. Then, you need to be prepared to arrive at your point in another way, and maybe even get into snowflake formation, in detail, in how you perceive that to be a natural and non-designed process, and why.
 
I'd love to hear a fitting explanation for two things:

(1) Mitochondrial diseases.

(2) The primogenitor paradox (i.e., if an Intelligent Designer created everything, who or what created that Intelligent Designer.)

-Dr. Imago
 
yeah, the 'id raises more questions than it answers' argument is a good one. where did the creator come from, because that being is OBVIOUSLY too complex to have just 'come about' by accident.
 
If we find out who the speaker and the points are, we could play Devil's advocates here in helping you prepare for the actual presentation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom