General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy Son Needs Some Help. Anti-Evolution Speaker Coming to His School
Dave Nutting, founder of the Alpha Omega Institute is coming to Clemson in a couple of days to give a talk entitled "Was Darwin Wrong?". I wanted to give my son a bullet point version of the case for evolution that could counteract Mr. Nutting's talk. I am posting this on the Science forum, also. Any information you could add to my list would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help!
Here is a link to the Alpha Omega Institute:
http://www.discovercreation.org/index.htm
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
white_wolf
(6,257 posts)there will be a similar presentation at UT on Darwin's birthday later this month.
1ProudAtheist
(346 posts)Evolution proved
[IMG]
[/IMG]
JSnuffy
(374 posts)... as opposed to spouting some talking points as passed down by his mother.
Especially considering the fact that there are no consequences if he sucks at it. He can only benefit from the experience.
YMMV
renie408
(9,854 posts)willing to share their knowledge. He didn't ask me too. He is a Palmetto scholar working on a dual major of education and math on full scholarship to Clemson. He is perfectly capable of doing the research himself. I offered to help. If you have nothing to say to that end, thanks anyway.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Every once in a while relatively new people fall into the nazi's for better spelling or parenting or whatever syndrome. And then there's the relatively new ones who just insult the OP. (see answer #35)
If your son is a scholar then it seems you've done something right.
... a YMMV suggestion makes me a nazi... Classy...
What does YMMV mean?
11 Bravo
(24,305 posts)renie408
(9,854 posts)Hell, I still don't know what it means in the context in which it was used.
we can do it
(13,023 posts)
YellowRubberDuckie
(19,736 posts)...while using an apostrophe, not for possession, but for pluralization, which is wrong. Just thought it was worth the irony to point out.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)
Bucky
(55,334 posts)
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)the fact that the tubes from the human testicles to the prostate are tied in a knot is pretty compelling.
(For some reason we developed niftier sperm that lived best at a lower temperature, so the testes became external. But as these did so evolution didn't know how to drop them without crossing the tubes over themselves in a funny way, because evolution (unlike God) doesn't actually "know" anything at all. The males with crazy plumbing were having more or better babies and so we got stuck with an amazingly bad design.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)bring up the moronic flagellum argument and that can be countered pretty easily by understanding the following: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
Other quickie shut the prick up talking points can be found at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
If he can actually understand the science behind the talking points he can have the fundie groveling in no time.
dflprincess
(29,335 posts)1ProudAtheist
(346 posts)in your other thread. This seems applicable.
"During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world... The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes... In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vase power in the hands of priests." -Albert Einstein
yellowcanine
(36,777 posts)Why does such a small tooth need a larger bone foundation than any other human tooth? And why do these just happen to be the same teeth as the very large teeth in baboons and other primates?
Walk away
(9,494 posts)I would call and let the school know why you are keeping him home. Then take a trip to your nearest Natural History Museum!
renie408
(9,854 posts)I thought Clemson was pretty well known, but we are from the South, so maybe it's just well known here.
I think one of the religious groups at school is hosting him. At least I hope so.
lapfog_1
(31,876 posts)The math alone will convince one of evolution.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Talk Origins is devoted to debunking creationism
http://ncse.com/creationism
National Center for Science Education
This site has lots of information - that link is specifically about the issue of creationism.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html
Jerry Coyne is a good scientist to read up on
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolution-creation-proof-opinions-darwin_0212_jerry_coyne.html
This is a GREAT ARTICLE about why people believe certain things - and why.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bloom07/bloom07_index.html
Loki
(3,830 posts)It is really an exceptional dialogue on intelligent design/creationism and the Theory of Evolution. Everything you need to know is there.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)It only makes the lucid ones more lucid.
niyad
(132,143 posts)
csziggy
(34,189 posts)They had an entire issue on this "debate" in July 2002. You can buy a digital copy but you could also see if your local library has access for free.
By John Rennie | June 17, 2002
How to Debate a Creationist: 25 Creationists' Arguments and 25 Evolutionists' Answers. Michael Shermer. Skeptics Society, 1997. This well-researched refutation of creationist claims deals in more depth with many of the same scientific arguments raised here, as well as other philosophical problems. Skeptic magazine routinely covers creation/evolution debates and is a solid, thoughtful source on the subject: www.skeptic.com
Defending Evolution in the Classroom: A Guide to the Creation/Evolution Controversy. Brian J. Alters and Sandra M. Alters. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2001. This up-to-date overview of the creation/evolution controversy explores the issues clearly and readably, with a full appreciation of the cultural and religious influences that create resistance to teaching evolution. It, too, uses a question-and-answer format that should be particularly valuable for teachers.
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences. Second edition. National Academy Press, 1999. This concise booklet has the backing of the country's top scientific authorities. Although its goal of making a clear, brief statement necessarily limits the detail with which it can pursue its arguments, the publication serves as handy proof that the scientific establishment unwaveringly supports evolution. It is also available at www7.nationalacademies.org/evolution/
The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. Niles Eldredge. W. H. Freeman and Company, 2000. The author, a leading contributor to evolution theory and a curator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, offers a scathing critique of evolution's opponents.
More: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=other-resources-for-defen
Linked from this article which is available in full if you're a subscriber:
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie | June 18, 2002 | 2574
Creationism Vs. Evolution The controversy over evolution rages on. Win all your debates against creationists with the science in our special report. » September 10, 2008
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)
Initech
(108,659 posts)"We want our thumbs!!!"
Bucky
(55,334 posts)
Alexander Agassiz, David Shormann, George McCready Price, and Stephen Meyer. All evolution deniers and each a relatively handsome and non-simian appearing man. Bill Hicks is pretty funny for people not willing to look beyond their own prejudices.
Initech
(108,659 posts) 
libinnyandia
(1,374 posts)domesticated 1000's of years ago.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Here: http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/episode/dogs-more-dogs.html
All about how dogs evolved from the first domesticated wolves to the species with the most variety on the planet.
handmade34
(24,009 posts)just encourage your son to study and enjoy biology...
Darwin was about Natural Selection... Evolution was already in the air...
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution. The essay was first published in the American Biology Teacher, volume 35, pages 125-129." (from wikipedia)
...study Georges Louis Buffon(1700's), James Hutton(1700's), Jean Baptiste de Lamarck(early 1800's), Charles Lyell, etc... Darwin was a seminarian and got much of his supporting evidence from Alfred Wallace and clergymen, Thomas Malthus...
good read... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Natural_selection
"survival of the fittest" coined by Herbert Spencer simply... fittest=best able to reproduce
I went to the National Aquarium today and took this photo... natural selection in action
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)
derby378
(30,262 posts)If Dave stays a nice guy even if challenged, that's cool, but I've known a few creationists who turned downright insulting when they were called on their BS. One of them even challenged my future wife, who had a Bachelor's in Marine Biology, to "Go look up 'appendix' in the encyclopedia." I have it on good information that she really got under his skin, as he complained about her to pro-creationist audiences for years afterwards.
Agony
(2,605 posts) 
me b zola
(19,053 posts) 
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)1. Which alternative theory does a better job explaining and predicting the observable changes in plants, animals and humans? You seem to be looking for "gaps" in the Theory of Evolution ... and so, can you provide an alternative that has fewer gaps?
2. The theory of evolution explains how an organ like the appendix can become unnecessary. Why would an intelligent creator include an organ that we don't need? And on follow up ... doesn't the existence of an illness like cancer indicate that a theoretical "intelligent creator" is in fact flawed?
3. Intelligent Design is often described in metaphor and analogies. One of the many examples of this is the "watch maker". The argument goes that a watch can't "evolve" into existence, and so it must have had a creator. But that analogy assumes ONE PERSON builds the watch. Today's watches are created by many people, with different people creating the many parts. Given the incredible diversity of life on this planet, would it not be more likely that there be MANY creators, each with MANY suppliers?
4. Is the "Intelligent Designer" active in our daily lives ... regardless of which position you support, can you provide scientific evidence which supports your position?
5. From the scientific evidence, would you say that the "Intelligent creator" is more likely an omnipotent being, like the Christian God, or more likely a race of Intelligent beings?
6. The Theory of Evolution provides a predictive approach for how to use genetic variation to create seedless grapes and seedless oranges, how would the Theory of Intelligent Design provide similar pragmatic outcomes ... or explain how a virus becomes immune to antibiotics? In short, what are the best examples of how your alternative theory can be used to manifest pragmatic solutions to actual problems?
And if this guy goes deep into Creationism ....
7. Why did God create the universe and the planets and THEN create light. Did he need the light to see what he made?
8. If God created man and woman in his own image, did they have an appendix? Does God have one, and if it becomes inflame, does God need a Doctor?
9. If God is all powerful, why did he need to REST on the 7th day?
10. The book of Genesis says God made man out of "the dust of the ground" ... that sounds a lot like evolution. No?
11. The book of Genesis seems to suggest that a husband and wife should feel ashamed to be naked in front of each other (after all, there was no one else there) ... do you agree with God?
I'd put questions like this on a piece of paper and then ask the one that makes the most sense at any given point.
renie408
(9,854 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I actually think that the best way to kill this creationism nonsense is to try and teach it in schools.
It is usually taught as part of an indoctrination program in a church ... when you start to call it "science" it becomes subject to the same level of scrutiny that Evolution gets.
And so ...
1) Tell your child to always call it the Theory of Creationism. They hate that. If it is a science, it can't also be a religion.
2) When the creationist tries to focus on any specific "gap" in evolution ... immediately ask them to explain, using OBSERVABLE scientific evidence (critical to include that), as to how their theory fills that same gap. If they try to use an analogy or a metaphor, point out that those are NOT scientific, but rhetorical arguments which have no place in science. Thew hate that too.
3) One way to really throw them is to ask them if there is one "Intelligent Creator" for Humans, one for Animals, and one for Plants. Humans and animals are really very similar (Humans are animals after all) ... but plant life is very different ... and so it would make sense for there to be at least 2 Gods, on who designs (and builds) humans and animals, and one who designs (and builds) plants.
Here is a GREAT video, about an hour, but it has some great stuff ...
markpkessinger
(8,908 posts). . . a scientific theory is the same thing as a "theory" in the popular sense of the term.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)You and your son obviously do not agree with the speaker and do not share his theories. Is there harm in your son listening and trying to understand how this man sees the world? I think, your son will gain much more from listening to this man's point of view, understanding that many people share it, and (while certainly not embracing it) becoming cognizant that this is a philosophy he will have to navigate in his adult life, like it or not.
There is much to be learned here. Blowing this man up, while gratifying, gains your son nothing but a moment of pleasure. Learning this man's point of view gives your son the power to manipulate it.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)If the presenter has a realistic position, he should welcome some tough questions.
However, if the speaker plans to focus not on alternative theories to evolution, but only to focus on the "gaps" he sees ... then that speaker is not worthy of any attention.
If this speaker wants to present GAPS in the Theory of Evolution, he should also be able to explain how the Theory of Creationism deals with those same "gaps" ... if he can't do that ... then there is little reason to take him seriously.
Its easy to attack a "theory" ... much harder to defend one.
And a real scientist can handle both aspects.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)and yes, you are correct if he is actually trying to ask meaningful questions to better understand the Young Earthers belief system, no matter if it is right or wrong. However, the OP wants "ammunition". She wants to pick a fight. I also find it funny that she apparently feels very strongly about this, yet is so uniformed she has to come on DU to ask for counterpoints to the speaker. Generally speaking, if I am against something enough to want to have a heated argument, I don't need to come to DU to collect my counterpoints.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I was referring to the speaker mentioned in the OP.
If you go to the site that the OP included, you might get a sense of where their concern, and need for ammunition, probably originates.
And I would suggest that this is a fight. A fight that is waged in school boards around the country all to frequently.
The goal of the Creationists is not to promote creationism, but to undermine the teaching of Evolution, not only in the classroom, but in common knowledge and understanding.
They intentionally attempt to mislead people about what Evolution is, what it describes, and what it predicts.
All of that said ... I think that folks come to DU for a wide array of reasons, not all of which would align with your reasons, or with my reasons.
renie408
(9,854 posts)It is comforting to know that the intellectually superior are wandering the DU, ever ready to keep the rest of us ignorant slackers on the straight and narrow. You would think being a REAL scientist that you would not insert your own interpretations of text into a discussion and would work with facts in evidence. Could you go back and point out the post where I asked for 'ammunition'?
See, I thought this was the kind of subject that would interest the people here. I also know that there are a lot of very well-informed people with a broad base of knowledge who might have points that I would not have thought of. And there have been. I won't defend my personal knowledge of evolution to you, because you have made up your mind from one simple post that I am intellectually lazy and inferior to you, the 'real' scientist. I will say that I am NOT a real scientist. I am a real person with a real job that takes up a really large part of my life. I also have a home, two kids and a husband. I try to stay informed on a broad variety of subjects and one of the ways I do that is to come here. I was talking to my son at the same time I was on here and thought "Hey, I bet there are a lot of people on the DU with a ton of information on this and who have been through this debate. I will ask them for help." I am sorry that offends your intellectual sensibilities.
As for understanding the Young Earthers belief system...why? Because a lot of people believe in it? So we should all try to understand what they believe. I do understand it. There really isn't a whole lot to understand, honestly. To me, even giving this idiotic drivel any kind of respect lends it weight. This speaker is coming to a university to question the theory of evolution and is offering a Q&A session afterwards. I imagine he expects some tough questions, as he should.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)I am saddened that a mother would deny her son (is he actually attending Clemson) the opportunity to learn and discover for himself. He could be finding his own arguments to counterpoint, he could be learning how other people who share this world think, he could be doings lots of positive things. Instead, he has a parent asking for others on a message board to provide him with an argument that supports his mother's opinion.
I guess that does offend my intellectual sensibilities. College is for self-discovery, you are denying him a lot of learning here because your agenda comes before his intellect. Which was exactly what I said the first time.
renie408
(9,854 posts)doing your own research hasn't done his. I am also saddened that instead of addressing anything I said, you are going for the ad hominem attack. Actually, most everything you have written has been to attack me and not to support any real argument of your own, other than that we should listen respectfully to a creationist trying to disprove evolution. Gee, I wonder if you might have your own agenda here.
Had you read much of this thread at all, you will see that my son is a Palmetto scholar on full scholarship to Clemson who is taking dual majors in math and education. He is perfectly capable of doing his own research and has. I OFFERED to ask here if anybody had any good information on the subject. And we share this agenda. He is actually a little more rabid than I am when it comes to the disinformation offered by pseudo scientists.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)1) I am very good, but a Soothsayer I am not.
2) Let your son do his own homework, it matters not if you OFFERED or if he asked.
3) The Helicopter Parenting thing is a bit banal; he's an adult at a fine University. Let it go.
4) My only "agenda" is to hopefully advise a promising young adult that sometimes shutting their mouth and opening their ears will give them a far greater advantage than running off at the mouth. By your own admission, Mr. Nutting has the advantage of practical experience and thousands of repetitions. He will likely bend your son like a pretzel if he engages him. However, if you son has the smarts to sit back, let others engage him, and observe (as a good scientist should) he will likely come away from this with more astute than he was at the beginning.
5) Now you can honestly say I have made an ad hominem response, #2 and #3 seem to fit the bill.
renie408
(9,854 posts)It's when you go after the person, not the argument. You already did that when you automatically assumed that my son is intellectually lazy and in your original comments about me. #2 is in no way an ad hominem attack. #3, maybe. And AGAIN you are assuming facts not in evidence. Which is what you have done all along. How do you KNOW I am a helicopter parent? Please, contact my children's teachers and ask them how many times they saw me in class. I don't do my kid's homework for them, I don't hover; I do keep a close eye on my kids, but have YOU tried raising kids today? You have to. You need me to be wrong and a bad parent to justify your original comments and your continued defense of those and other things you have said. Cause if my son isn't intellectually lazy and I am NOT a 'helicopter parent' and NEITHER of us is ignorant of the facts of evolution and I NEVER asked for 'ammunition' and I AM just a parent who asked a simple question, then you look pretty much like a jerk. So, all of those things must be true and you must continue to argue as if they are, cause you just KNOW you aren't a jerk, right?
You arrogantly jumped to some false conclusions and reacted to those instead of to any evidence available to you. When confronted, you have continued to defend your incorrect assumptions, continued to form new assumptions and react to those instead of to anything factual and continued to argue using several logical fallacies. Are you SURE you are a scientist?? Because you have exhibited no logic that I can discern.
Next time slow down and respond to what you read and not what you read into it. When you make a mistake, say 'my bad' instead of defending your mistake by making more. If you do that, then next time you will not only LOOK like less of a jerk, you may actually start to BE less of a jerk.
I debated whether this post was actually an ad hominem attack, but since our discussion from your first response has been primarily about your behavior and whether or not you are egotistical, I think not.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)I don't think your son is lazy, I think you are most likely a helicopter mom (you don't even want to know why I think this is the case), which is why #2 and #3 are ad hominem.
I also think you are overly defensive an talk too much.
renie408
(9,854 posts)No, I really don't have to tolerate ignorance. Or ignorance dressed up as pseudo science. All beliefs are not created equal. The harm in pretending that this whack job has a position even remotely worthy of anybody's attention is that he and all the other whack jobs start to think that their pseudo science bullshit is just as valid as the real thing and science books in Georgia wind up with little stickers on them.
You can ass kiss the ignorant if that works for you. It doesn't work for me.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)You already know the man's position is foolish, yet you also know a full 40% to 50% of the United States hold his position. This is not a "fringe" belief. Many Protestants who adhere to solo scriptura believe it fully. So pound your fists against the post and still insist you see the ghost. You are letting a learning opportunity pass him by.
He is going to have to deal with this again, and again, and again. It is far better to know your enemy than it is to sit there in ignorance. For the record, I am a toxicologist, I have been published several times in the Journal of Molecular Biology, and I deal with this at least a couple of times a month. I know what I am talking about.
renie408
(9,854 posts)That makes a WORLD of difference in how I view what you have written. And published, too! Oh my! I feel so honored that you have even taken the time to address little ole me.
First off...seriously, dude, ego much?? That is the most glaring thing I get from your posts.
As for the rest, appeasing stupidity isn't going to do much to change it. The goal of standing up and asking tough questions which refute Mr. Nutting's religious based theories isn't to change his mind. His mind is made up and his wallet depends on that. The goal is to offer some doubt for all the OTHER people in the room. If everybody goes and keeps their mouths shut and listens respectfully, a lot of people are going to walk out of that lecture thinking that everybody agreed with what was being said. So, yeah, I do want ammunition to create doubt in people's minds. And yes, this subject does get me fired up. I live in an area where high school students stand up and walk out of science class so that they don't have to listen to anything about evolution. Where my daughter's 6th grade social studies teacher told her class that she didn't believe in early man, but was forced to teach it by the state. And I guess we should all just sit quietly and not argue with these people; but the more we do, the more of them there are.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)Mine, because I state as a professional scientist I deal with this often, especially with lay people, or you, who feels that it is their responsibility to ensure that all the OTHER people in the room know and understand YOUR point of view. Now, remind me, who was invited for a speaking invitation, YOU or Mr. Nutting?
renie408
(9,854 posts)Not because you stated that you are a scientist, but because you find the need to prop yourself up with extrapolations about the intellect of others. Also, you applied your own definition to my post with the 'ammunition' comment. Nowhere in this thread did I mention wanting ammunition for anything. When someone made a comment about scientists in response to your post that was not directed AT you, you felt the need to tell everyone that you are a published toxicologist. You denigrated my understanding of theory of evolution without any evidence to support your comments and stated that YOU didn't feel the NEED to come to the DU to get help with YOUR arguments. And you wonder why I think you are an egotistical twit?
And as a supposedly published scientist are you really saying that evolution is MY 'point of view'? Seriously? Mr. Nutting is being paid by SOMEBODY to come and give a talk in which he is making an attempt to persuade people that evolution is wrong and that creation is right. After the discussion, he is offering to answer questions. You seem to feel that it would be 'rude' (???) to ask him any questions that might cast doubt on his theories. That we should all just try to 'understand' the Young Earthers and the Creationists because, gosh, there are so darn many of them. And then you make an attempt to retaliate to my responses to you with straw men.
So, hey, keep jumping back in on this as much as you feel you need to in order to prop up that ego, but the more you do, the more you make my arguments for me. Thanks for the help!!
GoCubsGo
(34,888 posts)I have been to a few of these propaganda circuses, myself. I have yet to meet anyone whose mind was changed in either direction by them. The people with scientific backgrounds already know this guy us purveying a pile of crap, and why it's crap. As for the others, he's just preaching to a very ignorant choir. Most of them slept through their science classes, or were never taught the scientific method in at all. Which is why they believe this "creationism" shit in the first place. And, why they don't understand that the Theory of Evolution is irrelevant to the existence of their or any other god. And, scientific theory is not the same as the dictionary definition of a theory.
I agree that it's worth going to this thing just to see how these people operate. However, these forums are poor formats for trying to educate anyone, or to disprove the guy on the stage. Nutting and his ilk are experts at manipulating the facts to suit their views, and presenting them to ignorant people who are only there to have their beliefs validated. Given their lack of scientific education, these people in the audience wouldn't understand why the answers this quack gives to any "meaningful questions" are complete and utter bullshit. How does one explain to the audience, in a couple of minutes, why the arguments that Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics are bogus, when the audience has no understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
Go. Learn from it. But, don't expect to change any minds.
renie408
(9,854 posts)But I think my son feels like just letting stuff like this go without confronting it in some way makes it easier and easier for this particular brand of crap to be taken as truth.
We live in an age where 'they' are taking back science. Right now US students are ranked 29th in the world in science. So, I just don't think quietly ignoring the Dave Nutting's of the world is the right thing to do. And neither does my very intelligent, free thinking son.
GoCubsGo
(34,888 posts)I'm just saying that he shouldn't expect to change any minds. It's fine to challenge people like Nutting. However, the real differences are made away from carnival barkers like Nutting and their dog-and-pony sideshows.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)He starts out with a conclusion that has not proven it can objectively prove itself through study, observation, and the scientific method and is derived from religious creation stories.
Vinca
(53,926 posts)I suspect anyone pimping creationism is a pig-headed idiot and won't listen to your child anyway.
PassingFair
(22,448 posts)There's an app for this:
http://www.magicofrealityapp.com/
mr blur
(7,753 posts)a god place to start.
renie408
(9,854 posts)spanone
(141,517 posts)
Jello Biafra
(439 posts)I think you can roll with Intelligent Design if you replace the word God with Extraterrestrial Being Entity. I believe one day that our "Junk DNA" will prove that...one of the other things that have been suppressed by TPTB/TPTW.
hunter
(40,665 posts)I always go for raw intimidation.
Like, what was their supposed god creator huffing when he created humans?
God appears to be a much better engineer if we simply evolved, if He simply mixed up the ingredients of life and stepped back with the omniscient knowledge and expectation that something intelligent would crawl out of the slime.
A work that needs constant fiddling with throughout time, yet still produces such obvious kludges as humans, THAT is the work of an incompetent hack.
Is their god an incompetent hack?
But the best thing is to never give them a stage, to let them know beforehand their arguments will be crushed not by mild-mannered scientists who tend not to be trained in this manner of manipulative debate, but by heavily armed theological streetfighters who believe Evolution is God's Most Marvelous Creation.
The best possible outcome of these phony "debates" is when the Creationist's don't show up.
renie408
(9,854 posts)Thing is, they will just say that god gave us the pelvic and back structures we have to give us back trouble as a trial to teach us...whatever it is he gives us troubles to teach us. And that appendices are present in our bodies for the same reason. And that we have blind spots...for the same reason.
I do get that the problem with arguing with people who are basing their entire premise on the illogical is that they do not have to employ any logic in its defense. That doesn't mean that to me, or my son, that the argument should just be avoided. The people who say that he shouldn't even ask tough questions totally baffle me. Sometimes silence is the same thing as agreement. So, he is going to go fight the good fight and ask some questions. I am sure the speaker will have heard them all before and will have some whacked out, sophist responses that sound just smart enough to fool those inclined to be fooled. But that doesn't mean that the questions should remain unasked.
hunter
(40,665 posts)... what kind of "intelligent design" is that? Just how difficult is it to make an opening bigger than the object you intend to push through it? Seriously, that's as stupid as a spacecraft missing Mars because one engineer was measuring by meters and the other by yards.
The problem with these sorts of questions is they've got rehearsed answers and distractions for all of those.
A direct attack on their theology is much more effective.
Just what the hell kind of god are they worshiping??? Why are they portraying their god as a less-then-omniscient and incompetent hack? Are they even Christian?
jenmito
(37,326 posts)just like some schools did when President Obama was doing nothing more than giving a speech on the importance of education and RWers screamed, "INDOCTRINATION!"
GoCubsGo
(34,888 posts)Attendance is optional. Somebody, probably from some religious club, invited this clown as an evening guest speaker for whatever is their organization.
SteveG
(3,109 posts)Most of the Creationist claims are welol answered at the the website of Talk Origins http://www.talkorigins.org/ have your son read through the site.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)If he doesn't have any prior background in evolution due to a deficient k-12 education, The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins is a good place to start for simple explanations of how and why evolution came to be a documented fact.
Why does this thread have to be the only research that is done before he attends the lecture? Why would anybody assume that he is somehow deficient or that I am 'doing his homework for him' because I asked if anybody had anything on the subject they would like to share?
Actually, Nick has read Dawkins fairly extensively. He is a smart kid on full scholarship and a Palmetto Fellow. I made the mistake of offering to ask here if anybody had anything that would inform his questioning of the creationist speaker. And for the most part, DUers responded as I expected...with help. But there are always those few. And I guess I have been here long enough that I should expect that, too.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)That's generally typical when the underlying research hasn't been done, my apologies if I made an incorrect assumption based on your phrasing.
Is your son looking for help with the style or substance of the arguments he can expect? There's a great deal on the internet about both the content and the typical rhetorical strategies of anti-evolution speakers. If it were me I'd look for youtube videos of the speaker (they usually have a canned speech that varies only slightly by venue) and then look up anything I needed help with on talk origins, pharyngula, the RDEF forums, etc. There are also a lot of videos on youtube of people questioning and debating creationist speakers, which should provide some instructive examples of what to do and what not to do.
renie408
(9,854 posts)My concern is that while he does have a good grasp of the straight science, speakers like Dave Nutting are experts at tweaking the straight science to suit their agenda. I think where my son may lack is in experience debating with someone like Nutting. I figured that here at the DU there were probably many people who had gotten into this discussion with a true believer and therefore might have some information to help refute this particular type of argument.
I should have been more specific in my OP. I knew what I was looking for and perhaps didn't convey that accurately.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)by saying that geology, linguistics, botany, astronomy, genetics, paleontology, soil science, zoology, archaeology, and virtually every other scientific discipline point to an old earth.
(I'm responding not because I think you should do your son's work for him, but because hopefully someone will learn something by this discussion.)
lynne
(3,118 posts)And on a speech that has yet to be heard, no less.
I have a feeling your son has a good head on his shoulders and will be able to determine truth from fiction all by himself. I would recommend stepping back and letting the next generation do their own research and make their own determinations. Who knows, they may be able to present things in a different and more convincing fashion.
renie408
(9,854 posts)You wouldn't believe how hard it is on me to run my own business, keep up the house and do all the work it takes to cover his dual majors in Math and Education. Gosh, it was even harder when he was in high school and I had to earn his Palmetto Fellow scholarship for him and the other scholarships that he has in order to be at Clemson on full scholarship.
Lynne, here's the deal, I was chatting with him last night when he told me about this lecture he was attending that is being offered as a counterpoint to Darwin Week. He told me that he and some other members of the secular club he is involved in were planning to go and ask questions during the Q&A session after the talk. I said, "Hey, I am on the DU right now. I bet some of the people there have some good information on this. I will ask if anybody has anything to offer." He didn't ask me to. I don't do his homework for him. Since he is taking some weird calculus that looks like Greek to me, I couldn't even if I wanted to. As a matter of fact, he just called to tell me that he just aced another quiz in the weird calculus class and at this point in the year, he has already gotten enough high test scores that if he wanted to quit going to class RIGHT NOW, he would still pass. He is a smart kid who can and does handle his own research. I like him and like feeling involved with what he is doing, so I made a simple offer. It baffles me that some people have managed from that to extrapolate that I am 'doing his homework' or even his research for him.
Peace.
sakabatou
(46,098 posts)chromosome #2 has two centromeres.
Darwinator
(1 post)There will be several people in the audience - students and professors - who will keep the guy as honest as possible. If your son is really interested in evolution issues, you could have him contact me (Kelly Smith - Philosophy) and I will be glad to discuss.
renie408
(9,854 posts)
onager
(9,356 posts)
In Oconee County. Always good to hear from people in the old home place...except for tools like Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint(ed), from whom I hear quite enough, even all the way out here in Los Angeles.
I hope everything went well at the revival meet...er, the Cretinist talk.
Really surprised that so many people thought you were doing your son's work for him. I didn't get that at all from your posts.
It's too late now, but for future reference here's a link I like. It's Abbie Smith's blog, "erv." She's a grad student specializing in HIV research. Which means she often has to refute anti-evolutionist knuckleheads:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/
april come she will
(21 posts)Adaptation is a form of evolution; does that mean that there was no Creator of that moth which changed shades of brown to fit into its surroundings? 
Such limited thinking! 
YellowRubberDuckie
(19,736 posts)They help kids in his situation get crap like that canceled. Schools are not allowed to do this sort of crap, and while kids can "opt" out, they are put in the in school suspension room and treated like criminals. It is not OK, in fact, it is illegal.
Duckie