Inteligent Design vs Evolution

[Alyeska]

This comming week I have a chance to sit in on a lecture by a member of the Discovery Institute. Its part of a series of lectures being put on by the local college on "Jeffersons Wall", and next week is Creationism, er ID vs Evolution. The speaker is David K. DeWolf, a law professor who is also a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. In other words nothing more then a PR windbag for the DI.

I am only going to get one shot at asking this nut a question durring the Q&A section and I am hoping for some advice on what to ask him. I do plan on interupting him if he attempts ANY logical fallacy as an answer.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

You could ask him:

" If ID is a theory as you like to call it such, why haven't the Discovery Institute come up with falsifiable predictions based on empirical data like other sciences do, instead of traveling the nation giving talks in forums at colleges and such in an attempt to drum up support for intelligent design from people who themselves are ignorant in the ways of science?"

[Durandal]

Just ask him how the scientific method, which deals strictly with the natural world, can possibly produce a theory which appeals to supernatural mechanisms to explain things.

[Alyeska]

I like both your questions. Though I have to agree with Durandals approach. I think a short and simple, but very profound question is the best route to go.

[Adrian Laguna]

If you are not guaranteed the opportunity to ask a question, then I strongly suggest you avoid smirking or rolling your eyes as the guy gives his speech. Having big eyes of wonderment would be perfect, if you can pull it off.

I also like Durandal's question, but it seems that it would be rather easy to weasel out of with a bullshit half-answer that doesn't really say anything.

[Darth Wong]

This comming week I have a chance to sit in on a lecture by a member of the Discovery Institute. Its part of a series of lectures being put on by the local college on "Jeffersons Wall", and next week is Creationism, er ID vs Evolution. The speaker is David K. DeWolf, a law professor who is also a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. In other words nothing more then a PR windbag for the DI.

I am only going to get one shot at asking this nut a question durring the Q&A section and I am hoping for some advice on what to ask him. I do plan on interupting him if he attempts ANY logical fallacy as an answer.

I can only suggest my favourite anti-creationist question: "if there is an intelligent designer, why did he make such terrible designs as sea animals which can drown in water, like whales and dolphins?"

[brianeyci]

Who is the intelligent designer? I've heard it was this Odin guy...

Brian

[Braedley]

I think that no matter what you ask, he'll find some way to weasel out of it. What's worse is that the majority of the audience won't recognize that this guy is weaseling his way out.

[Alyeska]

Ultimately, I don't care about winning converts. Those who agree with him won't change. Those sitting on the fence with some concept of logic will see his lies for what they are and I will give them an honest shot at seeing it better. If I say nothing, he is contested by no one likely.

[Mange]

Ask him what qualifications he has to reject evolution in the first place. He's a law professor, not a biology professor.

[Akhlut]

To echo Mange, why is a law professor debating science? I mean, I'd trust Stephen Hawking to tell me about physics, but I sure as hell wouldn't want him giving me legal advice.

Also, ask him why this intelligent designer is so damned enamored with parasites, making them the largest group of lifeforms on earth, by far. Does it have something against free-living organisms that makes it just give each and everyone dozens of parasites which live in, on, and among their host species?

[Zadius]

I can only suggest my favourite anti-creationist question: "if there is an intelligent designer, why did he make such terrible designs as sea animals which can drown in water, like whales and dolphins?"

What's the response you usually get from this? The only possible way out would be to explain how it is intelligent, but I've never seen anyone attempt it.

A couple arguments I have seen are:

1) It's a good design, we just can't understand it.

Which is circular. When you're trying to support the claim that there is an intelligent designer, you can't assume that the designs are intelligent to begin with.

2) An intelligent designer doesn't have to be infallible.

I would be surprised to ever see the Discovery Institute make this claim, since that would mean intelligent design doesn't support Christianity, as the Christian God is infallible. But, regardless, this argument leads to the absurd conclusion that the intelligent designer is not as intelligent as humans, as any human can understand why sea creatures that can't breath underwater is a stupid idea.

[Itô Doeblin]

Just ask him how the scientific method, which deals strictly with the natural world, can possibly produce a theory which appeals to supernatural mechanisms to explain things.

"You mismeant me. I never claimed there was a supernatural mechanism at work, just an intelligent designer. I certainly never said this designer had to be supernatural; that's entirely your strawman (In fact, I never said anything descriptive about the intelligent designer. But I'm not going to point that out loud.)"

Ask him what qualifications he has to reject evolution in the first place. He's a law professor, not a biology professor.

"This is precisely the kind of dangerous thinking that's polluting our children's minds in this culture. We're only supposed to trust these so-called experts on biology. But if only biologists could have a say on evolution, how could we know they're telling the truth? For all we know, they're yanking our chain! But hey, we can't question them, because we're not biologists."

Gee, being an creationist -- pardon me, being an IDer, of course -- sure is fun.

More seriously, as one of my math profs put it: "You can only talk bullshit so long. Sooner or later, you actually gotta do something." So here's my suggestion:

"You said Intelligent Design ought to be taken seriously as a scientific theory. One of the hallmarks of a scientific theory are its predictive qualities. If that is so, what kind of predictions can we derive from Intelligent Design?"

If he admits ID doesn't predict anything, he concedes that at least in that regard ID has a disadvantage compared to evolution. If he tries to make something up, he'll have to justify how he can predict the behaviour of the unknown designer.

Have a nice day,
Itô

[Rye]

You could ask him:

" If ID is a theory as you like to call it such, why haven't the Discovery Institute come up with falsifiable predictions based on empirical data like other sciences do, instead of traveling the nation giving talks in forums at colleges and such in an attempt to drum up support for intelligent design from people who themselves are ignorant in the ways of science?"

This is probably the best one, you might want to add how "we don't know how x works but we think that it was designed somehow" is not a paticularly falsifiable prediction.

I would probably ask: "what method did the intelligent designers use to create stuff? Do you have a load of ancient biotech machines that we have a rudimentary knowledge of how they produce living organisms, or do you not even have any idea how one would go about intelligently designing life? If we don't have any such machines, no hypothetical method, don't you just resort to god of the gaps? Sorry, intelligent designer of the gaps."

I think the Whales one can be ducked because he can blame that on evolution, rather than an intelligent designer. Remember, the ID crowd accept common ancestry and evolution, they just say that [God] did some tinkering on microscopic scales in ways evolution can't account for, that required intervention via a method we cannot even identify. Which is just absurd as my question was supposed to drum in; if you don't even have a concept of HOW one would intelligently design something, you cannot look for anything in the genome any more than you can look for an intentional intelligently designed crater on the moon, produced by unknown methods.

[Plekhanov]

I can only suggest my favourite anti-creationist question: "if there is an intelligent designer, why did he make such terrible designs as sea animals which can drown in water, like whales and dolphins?"

That could be a bit of a risky question as there’s a neat answer to it:

Air has a higher concentration of oxygen in it than water so aquatic air breathers don’t need to devote as much of their metabolism to breathing (iirc something like 10% as opposed to 25%) as water breathers do, so dolphins are actually very well designed.

If the guys knows it he’ll come off pretty well. Incidentally have any creationists ever given you that answer in a debate?

Maybe a slippery slope approach could work?

If ID which is strongly rejected by the vast majority of biologists gets rammed into the curriculum because of the political skills and influence of religiously inspired law professor does this mean that flat earth theory should be taught in geography classes because the Flat Earth Society lobby for it or that holocaust deniers should be given time in history classes despite the fact that only a tiny, discredited minority of discredited anti-semitic historians deny the holocaust?

Alternatively:

Why do you think that the scientific curriculum should be subject to public opinion and changed through the political process? Surely the truth is the truth it doesn’t matter how much we like it that just the way it is.

[Alferd Packer]

Similar to DW's question, you could ask him why our optic nerve is attached in such a way that we have decreased visual acuity and a blindspot, when a squid's eye is not wired so idiotically.

Or, perhaps more generally, "How does ID explain the rather idiotic designs in certain aspects of certain animals when those same aspects in other animals are more sensibly constructed? Could it be that the intelligent designer is actually a very powerful moron?" Then, if he wants an example, you bust out the eye thing, or the whale/dolpin thing. Or the fact that we have a dual-purpose windpipe that presents a choking hazard.

Finally, if he really pisses you off, stand up calmly, look him square in the eye, and in an even, mildly curious tone, say, "What's the weather like up your own ass?"

[Darth Wong]

I can only suggest my favourite anti-creationist question: "if there is an intelligent designer, why did he make such terrible designs as sea animals which can drown in water, like whales and dolphins?"

That could be a bit of a risky question as there's a neat answer to it:

Air has a higher concentration of oxygen in it than water so aquatic air breathers don't need to devote as much of their metabolism to breathing (iirc something like 10% as opposed to 25%) as water breathers do, so dolphins are actually very well designed.

Except when you look at whales in northern climes where there's ice cover and a number of them die every year because they get trapped under the ice. I'd agree it's not a real problem when the animal always has unrestricted access to the surface.

If the guys knows it he’ll come off pretty well. Incidentally have any creationists ever given you that answer in a debate?

No. Every single creationist I've ever used that on has retorted with the bog-standard "it's a good design but we don't know why" answer.

[mr friendly guy]

No. Every single creationist I've ever used that on has retorted with the bog-standard "it's a good design but we don't know why" answer.

By any chance did you ask them how they knew it was a good design if they don't know why?

[Darth Wong]

No. Every single creationist I've ever used that on has retorted with the bog-standard "it's a good design but we don't know why" answer.

By any chance did you ask them how they knew it was a good design if they don't know why?

Of course. That's when they reply with appeals to uncertainty, ie- "you don't know everything, so you can't know whether there's something which makes this a good design despite the whales dying beneath the ice every year".

[Hillary]

It'll be pretty much impossible to throw him with any question I suspect.

Remember - he has the floor and the control of the 'debate'. You ask a tricky question and he's guaranteed to have a stock answer to it. You will not be permitted a follow up question so the impression left with anyone who doesn't understand evolution will be that he has adequately dealt with your objections.

Personally, you're wasting your time going in my opinion.

[Dooey Jo]

I'd ask
"Do you have some kind of vendetta against this designer, or why is it that you have created this elaborate scheme to mock his intelligence, by attributing the idiocity of nature (this aforementioned unnecessary complexity for example, which is a perfect example of bad design) to it? Because surely, as the scientists you are, you do not assume that there must be hidden knowledge that somehow makes this stupidity intelligent?"

or (really the same thing, but condensed)
"When you say 'Intelligent Design', do you pronounce it as 'Intelligent *snickers* Design'?"

Actually, the most interesting question would perhaps be
"Why is it that close to a hundred percent of all adherents of Intelligent Design are christians?"
And bring evidence that it is so, in case he claims that it is untrue.

[defanatic]

I can only suggest my favourite anti-creationist question: "if there is an intelligent designer, why did he make such terrible designs as sea animals which can drown in water, like whales and dolphins?"

That could be a bit of a risky question as there’s a neat answer to it:

Air has a higher concentration of oxygen in it than water so aquatic air breathers don’t need to devote as much of their metabolism to breathing (iirc something like 10% as opposed to 25%) as water breathers do, so dolphins are actually very well designed.

But then why aren't fish, or sharks and stuff designed like that? One way or the other, there is poorer design somewhere.

[R. U. Serious]

Rye wrote:

Remember, the ID crowd accept common ancestry and evolution, they just say that [God] did some tinkering on microscopic scales in ways evolution can't account for, that required intervention via a method we cannot even identify.

I think you are mistaken, at least when referring to the larger ID crowd, and the people that are organized and pushing it politically. It is very clear that they are arguing against evolution, speciation and common ancestry.
They merely accept "micro-evolution" (given that it is repeatable [practically] in experiments, this is not surprising).
Their whole line of arguing is basically trying to discredit or raise doubt on evolution, and - due to the inherent un-falsifiability of ID - declare ID the "winner by default".

[R. U. Serious]

"Do you have some kind of vendetta against this designer, or why is it that you have created this elaborate scheme to mock his intelligence, by attributing the idiocity of nature [...]

"Why do you hate [...], because your theories are a direct attack on [...]?" is probably a good way to score a point given that it is proven how well that line of argument works with that crowd. Though it's neither really honest, nor has any scientific value. Under the given restrictions and circumstances though, it may still be adequate.

"Why is it that close to a hundred percent of all adherents of Intelligent Design are christians?"
And bring evidence that it is so, in case he claims that it is untrue.

That's actually not true. Just like creationism, ID is also gaining support in conservative islamic circles. They are using the same arguments and trying to achieve the same things. TO the point where I was wondering whether there are any anual get-togethers or coordinations to support each other...

[Dooey Jo]

That's actually not true. Just like creationism, ID is also gaining support in conservative islamic circles. They are using the same arguments and trying to achieve the same things. TO the point where I was wondering whether there are any anual get-togethers or coordinations to support each other...

I doubt that there are really that many islamic IDers, compared to the number of christian. The muslim fundies seem to take greater pride in how the Quran predicted all of science. From my experience, at least. Of course, if they do reject evolution, their idea must be pretty much: "The Quran predicted all of science, except evolution, which [therefore] is wrong"

But otherwise you can always change the question a little:
"Why is that almost 100% of all IDers are either Christian or Muslim?"

or if the percentage of muslim IDers is really high
"Is ID a terrorist/satanic organisation?"
(I'm just using the fundies' own rhetoric; I do not support the notion that all muslims are terrorists or that all terrorists are muslims)