So, the campus crusade is bringing in a "scientist"

to argue why Intelligent Design is real and good science and why it should be taught in schools.

Supposedly, it's a question and answer session. I've been a good girl so far this year and have not harassed the Campus Crusade (unlike last year when I put up signs exposing one of their deceptive ad campaigns). Should I go and ask questions? Any ideas for questions?

Might be worth Googling them and seeing what their agenda is. ID people share a common trait with climate change deniers: they're preaching a political agenda, not science. They don't argue rationally or logically, and quickly try to disparage the political affiliations of those arguing against them. ID has no theory behind it, other than the assertion 'a designer done it.' Very little of what they claim is testable, and that which is, is wrong.

If you know who'll be speaking, you might be able to find refutation of his/her work online.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_gish.asp

Duane Gish. He's been around quite a while.

...I'm amazed he's got any bunk left. There must be a dozen websites dedicated to showing what an asshat this man is.

Here's one taken at random: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/gish.html

I saw an ad for him just a year ago or so.

My roommate is part of it at my school and as far as religion goes, he's pretty level-headed. Isn't it a nationwide college thing?

besides the bible, that some omnipotent creature "created" the planet and all life on it. If they do ask them why they assume it was god and not some alien race, or the Flying Spagetti Monster for that matter...

edit: Also ask them what scientific method they used to come to their conclusions.

I listened to a radio broadcast in USF last week with Dr. Micheal Behe and Dr. Manning. It was very interesting and they made several interesting points. These guys obviously are very smart putting their academics careers on the line, they gave a person some serious issues to reflect on.

I started listening as a joke and walked away very impressed with "some" of their arguments.

If it the same people, it will be worth you time to go.

He is a proponent of ID and that takes away any objectivity...

He has not offed any real evidence of ID to date....

and he made some very prescient points.

I listened thinking he would be a joke, but finished with a lot more respect for him than I started.

If not, do so, you will see how much of a batshit nutball Behe actually is.

Darwin's Black Box.

I didn't find it full of batshit nutball.

Not that I swallowed his premise, hook, line and sinker, he does present questions that are not easily answered.

Have you read his book?

Most scientific questions aren't easily answered, and certainly not to the satisfaction of people not trained in the disciplines of science. You don't accept it "hook, line and sinker" so you obiously have reservations...that is good. Just keep an open mind but not so open that your brains leak out.
;-)

On the flip side of this debate, I find the evolutionist have the similar problem, their minds are so closed they reject all other possibilities.

Evolution certain does have many unanswered questions that seem to based more on "faith" than scientific fact

...and yes, I am well read on the subject.

I would love to have an answer to that.

to other possibilities on the how, why, where questions.

You are telling me that evolution theory has all encompassing answers?

I certainly hope not, as leading evolutionist will tell you they don't either.

Crick and Watson have a alien seed theory. (Panspermia) That's one possibility

The origin of "life" (whatever that really means) is NOT related to what happened AFTER. Crick and Watson are most assuredly not proponents of "intelligent design".

it could have come from magic beans too!

:sarcasm:

Because I hear a lot of jabbering about these unanswered questions, but I never hear what they actually are.

And the Cretinists have a response to every filled-in missing link which is "but what happened between species 99414 and 99415"...that is, each demonstrated link simply creates (for them) two more...the one 'before' and the one 'after'. Which gives them an infinite number of perceived arguments.

to tell us how you were oh-so-reluctantly wooed, against all of your previous biases, by the precision-crafted arguments of the Creationist Crowd?

:eyes:

Yeah, right.

Here's a book for you:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Darwin-Matters-Against-Intelligent/dp/0805081216

And some links.

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

The short answer is, the "irreducibly complex" argument has been shot to shreds numerous times. Each time, "scientists" like Behe move the goalposts, saying "well, that's not irreducible complexity, but this is". Bottom line? They're STARTING WITH AN END RESULT THEY REALLY WANT TO GET, then scrambling to try to shoehorn the data to weakly back up the assumption. And doing a piss-poor job of it, to boot. "Intelligent Design" ISN'T SCIENCE, which is why the "Campus Crusade For Christ" are the ones pushing the crap.

Have faith? Great. Then have faith. But don't try to call it something it isn't, namely "science". And don't demand that science change its rules just because the answers you get from legitimate science don't back up your baseless presupposition.

Behe is shilling for the Discovery Institute. Surprise, Surprise. Actually, it's not a surprise, because no legitimate "science" outfit wants anything to do with this shoddy claptrap, and so you have one -count 'em, one- RIGHT WING POLITICAL, SOCIAL, and PREDOMINANTLY RELIGIOUS organization pushing the "scientific" agenda of Creationism, otherwise known as "Creation Science", otherwise known as "Intelligent Design", otherwise known as whatever next new name they will give it when they try to pass laws forcing it into public school science classes.

Interesting, isn't it, that one of the big criticisms listed against the Discovery Institute is Intellectual Dishonesty. Funny that so many people supposedly pushing this "science" need to resort to lying, cheating, and otherwise misrepresenting who they are, what they believe, and who they're really shilling for so that they can foist this crap on the public. Why, you just see it everywhere, seemingly, whenever anyone starts to push this BS.

Interesting, indeed.

Here's some more on Behe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

I'll grant you one thing, brilliant scientific minds like Ann Coulter do think he's the cats fucking pajamas.

They've got tenure, now they're just milking their employers.

Their scientific reputation is totally shot.

Odds are good this "scientist" has written a book about how dinosaurs were hunted to extinction by Noah's kids.

I haven't found much information on him.

http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/diselvestro.html

http://hec.osu.edu/hn/facstaff/display.php?name=Robert%20DiSilvestro

He's a chemist, not a biologist.... Most of his papers are in sports nutrition-- look him up on Google Scholar-- he writes under RA DiSilvestro.

if he believes that evolution couldn't have happened, why hasn't he published any of his reasons in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

...is to claim that the peer-review process is a huge conspiracy by the godless to keep the 'truth' hidden. If pressed, they'll usually come up with an example of some great historical scientist, whose work was suppressed by 'the establishment' because it disagreed with orthodoxy. This, they imply, is what's happening to the brave ID 'researchers.' They're work isn't being published, not because it's crap, but because 'the powers that be' want it suppressed.

But it's a losing response.

...among the kind of fundies that view themselves as righteous underdogs in a sinful world. To them, it's an article of faith that ID and Creationism are denied respectability by the scientific community. After all, scientists are abortionists and cloners and stem cell manipulators. Such evil people would naturally try to suppress the word of God.

I mean honestly, how many moms have died in childbirth simply because the baby doesn't fit through the opening provided?

Forget the science, attack the underlying theology that makes him a believer in Intelligent Design.

Tell him he can't be a Christian, he must be some kind of Gnostic.

(According to the "Scientists" at the Discovery Institute)

But I'd like an explanation for my Wisdom Teeth. Those were a MAJOR pain in the ass to have taken out.

I also discovered that this is happening tomorrow. :eyes: What a nice advanced warning.

They have a whole cadre of people who use ID as a means of evangelization. They do this pretty much full time. So there's probably very few questions for which they have no response - and they're prepared to "zing" people with prepared responses to gain audience support.

Not that you shouldn't go and ask questions, just don't picture them as toothless hicks who can't speak in compound syllables. This is all an orchestrated "mission" to "save people for Christ."

Is he debating someone on your faculty?

(If you're reading this: yes, I'd say your constant unsupported assertions that ID is science makes you an idiot.)

Using Pesky "Facts" and "Evidence" to lure college students into sinful lifestyles of pre-marital sex.

And in a world where we have the KS State Board of Ed redefining "science" to fit their own skewed weltenschauung, is it any wonder we see science taking a back seat to fairy tales and sound bites?

Particularly when we need quality education so our kids can compete in the 21st century, as opposed to the 15th.

Explain how evolution, as it has been proved to exist in antibiotic resistant disease causing germs, insects, etc., is the work of the devil. Explain how if there is "intelligent design" than that too must be the work of the devil, for how else do we explain such bad human design as bad backs, bad knees, the dangers of childbirth, etc.

Quote something from the Bible -- Chapter 4 of Luke would be good:

Then the devil led him up to a high place and showed him in a flash all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, “To you I will grant this whole realm – and the glory that goes along with it, for it has been relinquished to me, and I can give it to anyone I wish. So then, if you will worship me, all this will be yours.” Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You are to worship the Lord your God and serve only him.’”

Then the devil brought him to Jerusalem, had him stand on the highest point of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you, to protect you,’ and ‘with their hands they will lift you up, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You are not to put the Lord your God to the test.’”

So when the devil had completed every temptation, he departed from him until a more opportune time.

Be very sincere, and tell him you would much rather believe in Creation, either 15 billion years ago or 6,000, than to believe that God is a bumbling tinkerer who lets devils run loose on this world.

Both the theology and the science of these clowns is repulsive to me.

:evilgrin:

First possibility:
Say you have a question and a follow-up. First question is since he's saying the Biblical account of things is right then Noah's Ark must have saved a pair of all the animals. Tell him that it would be a physical impossibility to get a pair of every different kind of beetle into the Ark let alone all the other animals. Ask him how could Noah save every kind of animal then with such limited space? If he says Noah didn't need to save every kind of beetle, dog, etc. then ask him where did all the other kinds of beetles, dogs, etc. come from? They would have to come from the pair on the Ark, and since they're all vastly different, then they would have to have evolved to their current state.

Second possibility:
Intelligent Design relies the idea of irreducible complexity - which they explain using the analogy of finding a watch in a field. Such a complex thing wouldn't just naturally involve but would have to had been created by something even more complex - such as a human. Therefore, something even more complex - God - would have had to create the humans. But if their hypothesis is to hold then there would have to be something even more complex than God that created God and something more complex than the God-creator, etc. His "theory" essentially says this. If he's not willing to accept this, his theory falls apart.

Third possibility:
Creationists believe that the universe (not just the world) is only 6000 years old or so. If that's true, then shouldn't he be railing against physics in the area of astronomy? It takes millions of years for light from other stars to reach us according to science. Yet, if the universe is 6000 years old then we have measured the distance from the Earth to everything - even the sun - wrong or we measured the speed of light wrong. Which is it?

TlalocW

It is better to claim they are possesed by demons and to start looking around for some pigs to drown them in.

Luke 8:33 When the demons came out of the man, they went into the pigs, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was drowned.

These questions have been around quite a while. I think I agree with the "drowning pigs" guy.

If you go there to fight with your sword of science, guys like this will simply shoot you. They are not playing by the rules of science.

You want this guy to be waving around his swords when you shoot him.

Hence my question about why there are no atheist ID proponents. Why - if ID is a truly scientific hypothesis - would there not be proponents of all stripes, including atheists, Hindus, Muslims, whatever. It appears to be exclusively Judeo-Christian (I think there are some Jews who travel around - they may be the Messianic stripe). True science doesn't depend on a person's belief in God - does it?

Diploma mill, anyone?

"It isn't even wrong."

Most of them have degrees in fields unrelated to biology, but a few of them do have decent degrees in Biology. It takes a ferocious kind of perversity to do that, to go through graduate school working with people you don't believe in, maybe even people you secretly loathe. I imagine it's rather like being a gay guy who denies his homosexuality to marry a woman.

They're walking arguments against "argument from authority."

Their degrees are meaningless.

Lipstick on pigs.

intelligent design and evolution.

Wonder what they would say? "ID is evolution, except whenever you get to a part we don't quite yet understand, you just fill it in with 'God'".

Make it real hard for them; agree that there MUST be a Prime Mover (big bang, god, a smurf) and then cite the differences between evolution and intelligent design! :rofl:

Just ask the so-called "scientist" what his credentials are.

(see my post above)

look foolish. They are pros and have generally heard it all and have pat asnwers. Don't forget you are coming from a position of logic and scientific truth. They are under no such obligation.

Poke around, find a weak spot, and savage them. They are not doing science, neither should you. Make it a dreadful ego-draining experience for them so that next time the Campus Crusade comes calling them they mumble "Um, No."

I show no mercy. These clowns are a roadblock on the path to civilization. (In case you haven't noticed, the U.S.A is *not* civilization. We are merely ignorant savages with a lot of toys, many of them deadly.)

Somebody who knows his biology.

You are there to win the hearts and minds of moderates in the audience. Ignore the religiously blind. Go for the moderates who can still be swayed.

Most scientists are TERRIBLE at this kind of thing, which is what these ID boobs expect.

You need someone who can draw the ID speaker off to a place where most of your "moderates" will see that he is utterly lost and incompetent to speak on the matter.

The sad thing is, even if you wipe the floor with them, they still get back up and think they've won something. And they have to. They had an audience.

The fact is, if you did ambush him with a prepared scientist, he's lost in the minds of moderates in his audience. It would be little more than an echo chamber for creationist fans.

1. Has God spoken to you?
IF the answer YES, it's "Thanks for playing, you're off your rocker".
If no, then let's say we go with the premise that ID is viable science simply because we don't know for sure. Here's the rub:

The issue shouldn't be which theory is closer to the truth. The issue should be which theory doesn't require a state sanctioned belief in some sort of higher power. these kids have to be here. Are we going to start making kids who believe differently opt out of science class because the school board was overrun by wingnuts?

So I would ask them:

2. Even if intelligent design is viable, given the nature of the theory, isn't it nothing more than state sanctioned religous doctrine? Aren't they simply establishing a church and furthering the cultural divide that's making it hard enough to learn already?

Are there any ID proponents who are atheist? Why not? Why would science be dependent upon a religious point of view? There are plenty of Christian and nonChristian scientists. But no atheist ID followers? Seems kinda odd . . .

You know like, how does the influenza virus (a mutagenic pathogen), MRSA or genetic disorders like sickle-cell fit into the scheme of intelligent design.

Why does God cook up brand new ways to afflict humanity and how do you distinguish this from random genetic mutation?

It doesn't really matter what you say, sophists are past masters at making a flawed argument sound plausible.

If you really stump them, expect evasion of the question. They are as slippery as eels and at heart intellectually dishonest.

(vestigal, as we godless evolutionists call it) tailbone?

"Mr googleman, siirrr,,, If we are intelligently designed, why are people so Republican stupid?"

(I usually start like that...)

I cannot believe that God is an unsatisfied tinkerer continuously tweaking the dials of an imperfect creation.

(Atheists will have to find other arguments.)

If God created everything as we do in lucid dreams (comparision of states, check it out), why would an act of overall creation have to exclude evolution as a tool of changing creation? You may note that many things change. Suffering brought from a resistance to change is an aspect of Buddha's teaching; change is obviously a part of the system.

Or can they only deal in soundbites?

Nonsense at this link. It's a few pages long, but well worth the read.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322