Anti-ID Argument Help

[Balrog]

As part of a public speaking course, I'm giving a speech about why ID should not be taught in schools while the person before me gives one about why it should. Now there are plenty of arguments to support my position, Wong's site being a big help, but the speech itself is limited to a couple of minutes, the audience isn't very scientifically minded, and I'll want to address some of the arguments my "opponent" will bring up (don't get to see their speech beforehand). I have a few points in mind, but I was wondering which areas do you think I should concentrate on?

[Sir Sirius]

The most important issue to cover would in my view be that ID theory is religious by it's nature. Along with ID's origins as merely re-labelled creationism.

Next up is Occam's Razor.

BTW look up "cdesign proponentsists", in case you haven't heard of it yet.

[Surlethe]

Next up is Occam's Razor.

I disagree. Occam's Razor is a technical concept, too difficult for an audience of laymen in a speech of a few minutes. If it's presented at all, it should be as part of a more down-to-earth appeal to common sense. Probably better to point out that ID is religion, not science, so it doesn't belong in science classrooms.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As part of a public speaking course, I'm giving a speech about why ID should not be taught in schools while the person before me gives one about why it should. Now there are plenty of arguments to support my position, Wong's site being a big help, but the speech itself is limited to a couple of minutes, the audience isn't very scientifically minded, and I'll want to address some of the arguments my "opponent" will bring up (don't get to see their speech beforehand). I have a few points in mind, but I was wondering which areas do you think I should concentrate on?

I have taken entire courses in dealing with their bullshit.

1. Explain how science works and why it assumes natural causes. I would use a mechanic analogy. If your car is not working you assume there is a natural cause, you dont worry about what gods purpose for your car is.

2. The three prongs of your opponent's arguments will probably be

Fairness and intellectual freedom

Irreducible Complexity/Information Theory

"Icons of Evolution", which include Cdesign Proponentists distortions about the Cambrian explosion, EvoDevo, and attacks on macroevolution. If you need assistance in dealing with these and what the arguments are, let me know and I can walk you through.

3. Bring up the Wedge Document and why it is imperative that Cdesign proponentists never get a foothold in our schools, because their end goal is theocracy.

[Samuel]

Ask them to make testable predictions that differ from the ones evolutionary theory makes.

[Rye]

Know your stuff, take notes on what the ID proponent before you says and refute what they say. My key points on ID are:

• It offers no testable predictions, so it's not a theory or explanatory in any way, that core problem means it is best addressed in philosophy (where it is stomped flat by any decent philosopher) rather than science.
• Since ID is not a theory, nor does it give any real mechanisms to test for that imply external alteration of organisms, how can they possibly declare what species are natural and what species are intelligently designed? If they don't know the mechanism and never propose any (because they want to leave it up to the magic of God, rather than something potentially verifiable like alien terraforming machines we've never discovered), how is their argument anything other than personal incredulity? They don't know how a cell moves, so someone much more complicated than that cell's motors artificially crafted it using some machines or magic we don't know about and don't know how to test for? You think that's an explanation? Or scientific?
• We distinguish natural things from artificial things by knowing their means of production, rather than not knowing it, which is the Intelligent Design modus operandi. We can spot that wooden chairs are not natural because we know of carpenters, we know that a tree can't survive if it's cut up into a chair. We know it is dead and someone furnished it that way because it is visibly distinct from nature. Creationists try to use examples like cars and paintings and other things that are easily distinguishable from something natural like a forest and say "hey, the forest is artificial too! We just don't know how!" What utter nonsense.
• Organisms have evolved in the past 60 years or less that are not only resistant to antibiotics, but actually require the presence of antibiotics that did not exist in the ecosystem 70 years ago. There are also organisms that survive by eating nylon and only nylon, something again that only came into existence in living memory. These organisms are "irreducibly complex" in that they exist in a niche that is very specific and they will die without it. So are we to believe that someone artificially crafted them or that they evolved from previous species that were not so specialised?
• There are certain species that are either absurd (whales that can drown) or immoral to engineer (guinea worm). Around 2/3 of all life is parasitic. Outside of photosynthesis, pretty much all life is dependent on the death of other organisms. Evolution can account for these things, intelligent, moral design cannot. If we assume these systems are designed with forethought, it is a cruel sadist that designed them. Most religious people do not wish to paint their god as someone who would be not only unable to create a functioning natural world that could evolve life on its own (requiring minor interventions to make cells work properly and soforth), but also intentionally design worms that live in human bodies and exit painfully through the scrotum and soles of your feet.
• It's a religious movement that (ironically) evolved from previous failed attempts to get creationism into the classroom; all its funders seem to be evangelical christians that spread the "call to arms" for it through religious groups, how bizarre for a supposedly scientific subject to be circulated. They removed the barrier to educational entry, God, and renamed him an "intelligent designer" with a nudge and a wink. Unfortunately, incredulity about cell motors having natural origins is not good science, and the language of intelligent design doesn't hide its creationist ancestor. The hoverfly looks like a wasp, making predators be wary of it and living for another day. The creationists are trying a similar rouse, but thankfully, we can see through it and swat them without issue.

[Lord Insanity]

Well if you are in the U.S. you might want to reference the case Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District. This pdf file is the complete ruling. Page 136 (of the pdf) is where the conclusion starts and would probably be most relevant to you. Especially this part:

...we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

That is some pretty heavy-duty federal court precedent to shoot his whole argument down with.

[mr friendly guy]

If they chuck up the irreducible complexity bullshit, point out that just because its can't be made any simpler to perform its current function, doesn't mean it can't perform a different function while it was more simpler. The example used against IDiots was the mousetrap, since they point out that a mousetrap is composed of x number of parts, remove one it becomes useless.

I suggest do what the scientist did in real life trials. Use a mousetrap, remove the "hold down bar" and use it as a tie holder. Obviously you have to dress up with a tie and I don't know how formal this presentation is.

For more info about mouse traps see here

[Darth Wong]

As part of a public speaking course, I'm giving a speech about why ID should not be taught in schools while the person before me gives one about why it should. Now there are plenty of arguments to support my position, Wong's site being a big help, but the speech itself is limited to a couple of minutes, the audience isn't very scientifically minded, and I'll want to address some of the arguments my "opponent" will bring up (don't get to see their speech beforehand). I have a few points in mind, but I was wondering which areas do you think I should concentrate on?

The person before you is subject to the same time limitations, so one can expect him to deliver some of the following ID standbys:

1) "Science does not have all the answers."
2) "Irreducible complexity."
3) "Students should be allowed to hear alternate theories."
4) "Life cannot come from non-life."
5) "Scientists are lying to you. Evolution is a giant hoax. The fossils are all faked."

Of course, he might not use those exact phrasings, but all of his arguments will probably fall into the first four categories, with a possibility that he will use the fifth (but only if he's a fundie).

To that, you want to point out that all of his arguments fall into those categories, and then address the categories:

1) Openly concede that science does not have all the answers. Then go on to say that anyone can give answers. Psychics, priests, prophets, and charlatans all have answers. What science has is better than the biggest answers: it has an empirical method, which has been proven time and time again. Evolution meets the requirements of this method. Creationism (and ID, which is creationism in a clown suit) does not. The method of ID is to simply blame anything we don't understand on the supernatural; this is the same method the Ancient Greeks used in order to conclude that the Sun was Apollo's Chariot. That is a method which has been disproven time and time again. Or to put it another way, science may not have all the answers, but the answers it does have are all generated by a logical, empirical method. That's why science has accomplished more in the past three hundred years than it did in the previous three thousand: a few centuries ago we came up with a method, and discovered that it works like a charm. Discard that method to make ID proponents happy, and you might as well discard the whole idea of modern science.

2) Point out some of the many flaws in irreducible complexity, such as the fact that it is based upon a failure of imagination fallacy (ie- if we can't figure it out yet, then it must be impossible without divine intervention, thus basically assuming that we have already thought of everything). Or the fact that irreducible complexity has been a constantly shifting goalpost for the past 150 years, starting with the eye and progressively moving down to simpler and simpler organs as scientists figured them out, until we're now left talking about sub-parts of bacteria.

3) Point out that theories are normally judged by panels of PhD scientists who have each got more than a decade of education and experience in the field, and that high school students obviously lack the background knowledge and scientific training to do this job. IDers want high school kids to judge these theories precisely because they know the students do not have enough training to properly judge scientific theories. It's the same reason that a guy selling a dodgy used car would prefer that you inspect the car yourself, instead of taking it to an auto mechanic for a qualified examination.

4) Point out that the law of abiogenesis is a handy rule, but "laws" in science are not necessarily supreme just because they're called laws. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, for example, is actually inferior to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. In reality, while there is much that we do not know about how abiogenesis might have occurred, that is irrelevant to ID vs Evolution. The fossil record tells us that there was no life on this planet in its distant past, and then ... there was life. Moreover, it tells us that this life began as extremely simple micro-organisms, and everything after that is consistent with an evolutionary pattern. And by the way, if life can never come from non-life, then where did this designer come from? It's a little inconsistent to tout biogenesis as an immutable law and then immediately contradict oneself by postulating an intelligent designer who pops into existence out of nowhere, isn't it?

5) You can use a generic anti-conspiracy theorist argument here. Conspiracy theories are all the same: they presume vast organized conspiracies of silence and superhuman dedication among huge numbers of people, the vast majority of whom have no tangible self-interest in maintaining this conspiracy and who, in fact, could probably stand to gain considerably by betraying it. Consider the fact that any scientist who writes an anti-evolution book and touts his credentials on the cover will probably wind up with a best-seller.

And if that's not enough, hit them with the fact that the IDers explanation actually doesn't explain anything. An explanation is not just a name; it is a description of the mechanism which allows us to understand what happened. So if there's a designer, what are his characteristics? What can he do? What can't he do? Why did he take billions of years to go from single-celled organisms to people? Why is he such a slow worker? Why is the fossil record filled with so many extinct species, if it was being guided by an immortal genetic engineer? Is he a sloppy worker too, in addition to being unbelievably slow? What did he spend his time doing? Why were the dinosaurs allowed to rule the Earth for hundreds of millions of years, if it turned out that he was unhappy with them and wanted to go with humans instead? Why did it take him so long to decide that dinosaurs were no good and switch to us? Why did he use so many intermediate steps, thus making it look as if natural evolution was involved?

Of course, IDers cannot possibly answer any of these questions, because their "intelligent designer" is not an actual mechanism, or explanation. It's nothing more than an undefined mystery man, which they tout as the answer to all the mysteries of biology. Well you can't solve a mystery with another mystery; Sherlock Holmes would have been very disappointed in us if we thought that was actually a good idea.

[Coalition]

If they argue for an intelligent designer, then they may try to use aliens as the designer, rather than a supernatural being. However, this gets recursive. You have to track back to the first beings that were 'designed', and ask if they got that way through evolution, or a supernatural being. If evolution, then they are accepting evolution works. If supernatural, then it doesn't belong in a science class.

Hmm, are they arguing for ID to be taught in a science class, or a philosophy class (to be compared with all the other creation myths)?

[Balrog]

Thanks for the help, it...helped. My opponent never showed up, so it was pretty easy from that standpoint. Basically focused on the fact that ID is not scientific, ergo shouldn't be taught in science class, and that as a theory it is useless as a method of prediction. Simple and straightforward enough that people were able to get it.