Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
While I don't know of Dr. Lisle, one advantage you have is that you know their topics. Do some research on the common Creationist arguments about the Big Bang, etc. If you aren't too well known with the group that's hosting it, go ask them for more information on the topic of the lectures and try to draw out some points they'll be making that you can then research counter-arguements for, or at least bone up on what the Creationist community says.Rogue 9 wrote:Okay, one of the Christian student groups on campus is bringing in one Dr. Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist, for a seminar on creation science and creation theory's supposedly stronger evidence as opposed to evolution theory. I've never heard of Dr. Lisle before, and the fliers they're posting around campus don't give a whole lot of information; just the titles of the various lectures. These are, in order of presentation, "BIG Problems with the Big Bang," "Creation Science," "Creation Science and Genesis," and "Astronomy and the Bible." There's a half-hour question and answer period at the end, which I intend to dominate. Here's a low-res snapshot of one of their fliers; apologies for the craptasticness of my camera.
<snip image>
Now, I know the general direction I plan on taking this given who and what I'm dealing with, but I'd like some advice on particulars. Primarily, does anybody know anything about this Dr. Lisle, what kind of arguments I can expect from him, what his angle is, and so forth? I don't have time to bone up on countering every creationist argument under the sun, so it would be useful to know specifics about what's coming.
The irony! It burns!At the university level, Jason discovered that an important element in scientific study and the drawing of conclusions was this: that scientists usually are not aware of their presuppositions (i.e. they interpret scientific evidence in light of their existing worldview). It thus made it easier for him to see that intelligent scientists, many who were his professors, can disagree on what the evidence really means, for they have different starting points. So as he read creation materials, he could see that when the evidence was properly interpreted, it always supported the biblical account of creation (even with the thorny question of starlight and time).
, kick their ass.
What, I ask to begin with, are the characteristics of a good scientific theory? Among a number of quite usual answers I select five, not because they are exhaustive, but because they are individually important and collectively sufficiently varied to indicate what is at stake. First, a theory should be accurate: within its domain, that is, consequences deducible from a theory should be in demonstrated agreement with the results of existing experiments and observations. Second, a theory should be consistent, not only internally or with itself, but also with other currently accepted theories applicable to related aspects of nature. Third, it should have broad scope: in particular, a theory's consequences should extend far beyond the particular observations, laws, or subtheories it was initially designed to explain. Fourth, and closely related, it should be simple, bringing order to phenomena that in its absence would be individually isolated and, as a set, confused. Fifth--a somewhat less standard item, but one of special importance to actual scientific decisions--a theory should be fruitful of new research findings: it should, that is, disclose new phenomena or previously unnoted relationships among those already known. These five characteristics--accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity, and fruitfulness--are all standard criteria for evaluating the adequacy of a theory. If they had not been, I would have devoted far more space to them in my book, for I agree entirely with the traditional view that they play a vital role when scientists must choose between an established theory and an upstart competitor. Together with others of much the same sort, they provide the shared basis for theory choice.
To clarify, this isn't a university-sponsored event. A student group is sponsoring it, and they can bring whoever they damned well please as long as they pay up for the use of facilities and whatnot.Admiral Valdemar wrote:The fact the uni is holding this seminar is bad enough. It lends credence to the "theory" of ID by staging an actual debate like that. I know it helps to smackdown these arguments in public and show that science has nothing to worry about, but the opposite is also necessary. We're making it look like we have issues now.
If my uni had been approached by these clowns, the Natural Science Dept. would laugh them off the premises and the sports teams would beat them up.
