Intelligent Design Seminar with Tom Woodward at my school

[Braedley]

So I'm reading through the message titles listed at the top of the school e-newsletter, and I see the thread title (not verbatim, but close enough). So I scroll down to read the entire message (not that I have to, because I already pretty much know what it will say) and see this:

UNB Christian Fellowship is hosting Dr. Tom Woodward to present a talk and question/answer period on the concept of Intelligent Design at 7:30pm on Friday, April 4 in Hazen Hall Lecture Theatre.

Intelligent Design is described as the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Dr. Tom Woodward is a professor at Trinity College in Florida, has spoken at prominent universities throughout the U.S. and has written several books on Intelligent Design including Doubts about Darwin and Darwin Strikes Back.

Should I go and try and rip this guy apart, or not even bother? There are a couple of issues that I have if I go. One is scheduling. My former residence is playing a full contact charity hockey game against their rivals that night, and I want to give a show of support for the team (and to see a good game).

Another is numbers. In all likelihood, I'd be vastly outnumbered, and I'm not sure how many people I can round up to argue on my side. That and I'm a little weary of testing the waters with some of my friends on this issue. I know of one that is religious, but none are very outspoken about their beliefs. We just never really talk about it.

[Darth Wong]

I'd like to see someone ask him to describe what sort of species would disprove intelligent design. Darwin described several different types of species which would disprove evolution, and no one has ever found one. That's one of the reasons evolution is a real theory and ID is not; evolution theory was not written with the intention of being so vague that it never makes any testable predictions. Darwin even went ahead and told people what kind of species to look for, if they wanted to disprove his theory. So if ID is a real scientific theory, then perhaps this guy could describe the sort of species which would disprove it.

[wautd]

undirected process such as natural selection

Wha?

[Darth Wong]

undirected process such as natural selection

Wha?

It's "undirected" in the sense that a river is "undirected". Even though its path is clearly shaped by physical forces, so that it doesn't arbitrarily change directions and defy gravity, it is not directed by a conscious force.

Of course, the conscious force that supposedly "directed" species development on this planet saw fit to make sea animals like dolphins and whales that can DROWN in water, so he's either insane or sadistic.

I once saw a video about beluga whales who drowned because they were attacked by polar bears as soon as they tried to breathe through the few holes in the arctic ice. They desperately went searching for other holes in the ice, but drowned before they could reach one. I'm sure they appreciated their benevolent design, of being water-dwelling creatures who can't actually breathe in water. But hey, they have useless vestigial finger bones inside their flippers. I'm sure ID has a good explanation for that too, and how that makes up for their stupefying design "decision" to make them incapable of breathing water.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Just do it... I would..

[Johonebesus]

Should I go and try and rip this guy apart, or not even bother? There are a couple of issues that I have if I go. One is scheduling. My former residence is playing a full contact charity hockey game against their rivals that night, and I want to give a show of support for the team (and to see a good game).

Another is numbers. In all likelihood, I'd be vastly outnumbered, and I'm not sure how many people I can round up to argue on my side. That and I'm a little weary of testing the waters with some of my friends on this issue. I know of one that is religious, but none are very outspoken about their beliefs. We just never really talk about it.

You can be religious without being a creationist.

As for attending the lecture, it really depends on how much fun it would be to you. Not only will you be shouted down and likely escorted out before you accomplish anything, you probably won't get the satisfaction of seeing him sweat. These people have "answers" for everything, and no matter how much it may be sophistic B.S., they will remain smug and their audience will accept that they somehow addressed the questions. You really can't beat these guys in a debate.

[wjs7744]

My advice would be if you do go, be prepared. I personally haven't heard of this guy, but if he is doing seminars, he's probably quite experienced, and could be used to hecklers. You don't do anyone any favours by being made to look like an idiot, least of all yourself, and that is a possibility even when you hold the superior position.

[Alyrium Denryle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_E._Woodward

That is your guy. Read his books, rip them apart, be smarter than him.... though it is not hard...

[Braedley]

The prep time needed right now would put too much burden on me being able to, you know, graduate, so it doesn't seem likely that I'll go. However, I did see a mass email (some idiot put all the graduating students' email addresses in the to: field, and people have just been hitting reply all) about ripping this guy apart, so it may happen yet.

[Tanasinn]

It doesn't necessarily seem worth your time, if you ask me. Arguing with a theist is like arguing with a block of wood, particularly when he or she has supporters around. It's not really fun (not even in a sadistic sense, since he'll probably think he's "winning" any discussion you have), and you seem to have better things to do.

[Darth Wong]

It doesn't necessarily seem worth your time, if you ask me. Arguing with a theist is like arguing with a block of wood, particularly when he or she has supporters around. It's not really fun (not even in a sadistic sense, since he'll probably think he's "winning" any discussion you have), and you seem to have better things to do.

Yes, but in a public venue you can bet there are a lot of fence-sitters, and if nobody opposes him, he just might convert a lot of them. If it was just him and his die-hards, then yes, I would agree that it's highly unlikely to accomplish anything.

[Kitsune]

I used to debate on a group like talk.origins but it was basically before I had the internet (mid to late nineties) and my reason for debating was the same as Wong. I know I would never get to the true believers but get to the fence sitters.

[Metatwaddle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_E._Woodward

That is your guy. Read his books, rip them apart, be smarter than him.... though it is not hard...

Woodward has a B.A. in History awarded by Princeton University and a Th. M. in Systematic Theology from the Dallas Theological Seminary.

In other words, no scientific training whatsoever. Yet somehow he's "professor of missions, evangelism and science" at Trinity and Dallas Theological Seminary.

I hate these people.

I've gone to these talks once or twice, and at one point last year I thought I poked a pretty big hole in one of the guys' arguments. But I don't know if I converted any fence-sitters or not, because this particular talk was directed towards science and engineering students and faculty, and most of the small group of people there were already highly hostile to the ID people. (There was a more general debate later, and of course I left the debating and convincing to the people who knew more about biology than me.)

[Nephtys]

Always engage these types. Their power comes from the ability to pretend there's some majority of agreement, so they can feed thoughts into gullible sponges.

I've actually seen crowds at the Santa Monica Promenade turn one direction to another just by persuasive argument, so it does work for those fence sitters. I had a Hovind-ite presenting this illogical sophism about how little humans know, and how much could be out there. The argument was, since our knowledge is finite, what we didn't know was infinate, our scientific lack of basis for theology was 0/1 correct.

A few people in the audience seemed actually sorta enraptured by this nonsense and thinking about it, as if it was some big revelation. I stepped over and commented a similar bit, from the Hitchhiker's guide, about how the population of the universe was zero by this logic. Or the number of bats in my bag was infinite. Then I went on about the incredible level of backing behind Evolution, and the crowd pretty much turned on the guy with laughter and whoops. He evacuated the little stage about ten minutes later.

So seriously, go for it. Just make sure you're well armed, and confidently able to deflect the most illogical of attacks.

[Connor MacLeod]

Yes, but in a public venue you can bet there are a lot of fence-sitters, and if nobody opposes him, he just might convert a lot of them. If it was just him and his die-hards, then yes, I would agree that it's highly unlikely to accomplish anything.

That's true, but alot of "fence sitters" can be converted by peer pressure/intimidation, rhetoric, or other bullshit tactics fundies and creationists like to employ. Especially when its a lone voice versus a crowd (groupthink and golden mean "Both sides have a point/merit" BS apply here, I suppose.)