How do I argue in favour of Special Creation?

[cleanup]

This might seem like an odd thread but an assignment I've recently received has bestowed upon me and the members of my group to engage in a debate of human evolution vs. special creation. I got special creation, arguably the worst and most difficult topic to argue (the other debate is evolution vs. creationism).

Research hasn't pulled up much as most of it is just evangelicals preaching on the Internet, citing the Bible and simply denouncing evolution (with no real empirical data).

I need to somehow make a logical and coherent argument in favour of special creation, but I have to have the facts. I can't just spew empty rhetoric, or exaggerate things.

The format of the debate is... we get an opening statement, there's a question and answer period, and then there's a closing statement.

Because of the lack of data or evidence whatsoever behind my topic (IMHO) I'm trying to look for ways to poke holes in the concept of human evolution... like what's the evolutionary advantage to believing in God? It's because God has willed it, and he is our creator, etc. Why do humans have a conscience? Things like that.

What do you guys think? Have any of you done this before? Or are there any of you out there who support special creation and can maybe give me a few tips? Are there other holes in the concept of human evolution I should become aware of? Any books that might have good info on this?

Thanks. :)

[skunk]

It's a bit like finding a convincing argument that the world is flat. I'm afraid you're going to have to rely on a great deal of baseless assertion. :rolleyes:

[cube]

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

[mkrishnan]

Ha, wow, good luck with that one. :p

The most compelling types of argument I've seen go along the line of attacking science without necessarily proving that an alternative is true. In particular, some creationists attack the basic assumption of physics (and by extension, of essentially all sciences), that the laws of physics are invariant (particularly invariant in time and space). If you think about it, physics becomes an utter disaster if you cannot assume that the laws governing a star a light year away are the same laws of physics that operate now, or that the laws of physics governing the initial inflationary period of the universe are not the same laws of physics that operate now. However, there's not really any way to prove that this assumption is correct. It appears valid, but were it not, it opens the door to all kinds of other interpretations of data. The weakness, then, of this approach, is that the data quickly becomes indeterminate -- if you don't make this assumption, it's difficult to prefer one interpretation of physics data over many others.

[psycoswimmer]

We just did a article (and then questions) in our religion class about this. I don't have the sheet with me right now but it basically said that the church's official stance is that God guided evolution. Creation didn't just happen in 6 days as Genesis says. One of the holes in the Darwin theory was that if cells had to evolve one part at a time, the cell wouldn't be able to function and would therefore die. I'll scan the article if I can find it later and post it here.

[Abstract]

Scientists have proven nothing. All they can say is that scientists have a theory that they strongly believe in, with not much proof going for them. I mean, ......"The Big Bang"? C'mon, it's silly. What was here before the Big Bang, and what was here before that? How is this any less silly, or more factual, than religion and God? The Big Bang seems almost as fictional and baseless as Scientology, or even Christianity.

If you leave out my last sentence and pretend it doesn't exist, you have an argument for God and Creationism. :p



PS: Start quoting The Matrix.

[walangij]

I don't have the sheet with me right now but it basically said that the church's official stance is that God guided evolution.

It depends on which church's official stance, there are various different views in different denominations.

Anyways, there are two points you could stick to, one is Endosymbiont Hypothesis of Mereschkovsky and Margulis which has some evidence, but it is very hard to speculate as true in microbiology. It is the only hypothesis on it out there thus far besides special creation. Basically it is an emphasis on mitochondria and chloroplasts where chloroplasts were photosynthesizing prokaryotes and Mitochondria were prokaryotic aerobic heterotrophs.
They were parasites or undigested prey of larger prokaryotes. Their association progressed: parisite > predator > mutualism. As the host and endosymbiont became more interdependent, they integrated into a single organism. (In a nutshell, a single celled organism consumed a smaller one, and they became 1, working together, and that cell replicated together and ect. ect, and later another smaller organism was consumed and became part of that one and ect. ect) The probability of this is not in the favor of science although there is some evidence like mitochondrial DNA, but science accepts it currently because there's no other alternative besides special creation/intelligent design/creation, until another hypothesis develops.

Another sticking point is singularity in physics and its definition but oh boy trying to make people understand what it is in the first place and then trying to point out flaws.

Good luck though, you have a hard position to defend.

[cleanup]

We just did a article (and then questions) in our religion class about this. I don't have the sheet with me right now but it basically said that the church's official stance is that God guided evolution. Creation didn't just happen in 6 days as Genesis says. One of the holes in the Darwin theory was that if cells had to evolve one part at a time, the cell wouldn't be able to function and would therefore die. I'll scan the article if I can find it later and post it here.

That would be nice, I think that would help me...

But please keep in mind that the debate our groups were assigned is "Human Evolution vs. Special Creation" not "Evolution vs. Creationism," which is why I'm really in the ******* here. While I can allude to creationism and evolution in general, I'm really arguing for the special design and creation of humans specifically. While there are many ways to define special creation, I think I can infer from the topics of the other debate that mine regards humans in particular... :(

So far most of my argument revolves around pointing out that evolution in itself is an unproven theory. While everyone says it's a fact of life, at the very least, the actual evolution of a new lifeform in the same magnitude as lower primates evolving into modern humans has not yet been empirically observed on Earth, am I right? And although the existence of God is not empirically observable, neither is the spontaneous creation of life on an early Earth (again, I'm alluding to evolution in general, not human evolution. This is the thorn on the rose).

'Evolution' can be observed in the development of pesticide resistance in insects or herbicide resistance in crop weeds, etc., but "is this really evolution?" Evolution, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (ie. my MacBook) is "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth." Can the terms "local adaptation" or "diversification" be used outside of the evolutionary context? Until we see these insects change radically (ie. not just in their resistance to pesticides, because clearly the mechanism of natural selection occurs at least to a small extent), we can't really conclude that evolution in its broadest sense actually occurs, right?

Argh.

[skunk]

the actual evolution of a new lifeform in the same magnitude as lower primates evolving into modern humans has not yet been empirically observed on Earth, am I right?Yes and no. Evolution is in general such a gradual process that we would not observe it over the span of a few lifetimes, centuries even. Lower primates did not evolve into modern humans overnight.

[PupnTaco]

There is no logical argument, looks like you got stuck with the short end of the stick. :(

[Macaddicttt]

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

What does Aquinas have to do with anything?

[cube]

What does Aquinas have to do with anything?

Well, you have to start by proving that God exists, for one, and there are many pointers to other thinkers from there as well.

[cleanup]

There is no logical argument, looks like you got stuck with the short end of the stick. :(

No kidding! I guess I'm trying to go with the Thank You For Smoking approach: I don't have to be right. I just have to argue correctly. I won't prove anything, but I'll attempt to poke holes in the other group's argument and catch them off guard with things they can't explain.

I suppose that's the only way my argument can go, and then I can tack on some loose statements for special creation (which I suppose will have something to do with "it's the only other plausible explanation for the complexity of humans" or something like that)... in essence I'm relying on the evolutionist's inability to explain our conscience, our belief in God, how they an conclusively show that evolution of humans has actually taken place, etc.

I like the idea that mkrishnan put forward... I'm not sure if I interpreted it right but I think he's saying that the concept of evolution assumes that the pre-contemporary world operated in the same way that the observable world does today, and that without these assumptions, we cannot trace humans back to lower primates, back to the first mammals, back to the first traces of life.

Any other arguments or attacks against evolution are welcome! :(

Well, you have to start by proving that God exists, for one, and there are many pointers to other thinkers from there as well.

Well, I think the point of my argument is to try to push the idea that humans are the result of intelligent design, which infers the existence of a god. I don't have to prove that God exists to prove intelligent design. If i did then I'd never get to the point of my argument.

[EricNau]

Scientists have proven nothing. All they can say is that scientists have a theory that they strongly believe in, with not much proof going for them. I mean, ......"The Big Bang"? C'mon, it's silly. What was here before the Big Bang, and what was here before that? How is this any less silly, or more factual, than religion and God? The Big Bang seems almost as fictional and baseless as Scientology, or even Christianity.
That's hardly accurate. There is scientific evidence backing both the big bang and evolution, where the existence of a god cannot either be proved or disproved by science.

Cleanup, your on the right track. You can either try and poke holes in the other's claims (which, unfortunately is a weak argument for you) or give reasons why the two claims are not exclusive (don't know if that's an option for this assignment). Like I said earlier, there simply isn't any scientific evidence to support your side (by definition there can't be), and if you try to use any scientific evidence you get yourself into a pickle because on one hand, you're looking to science for support, but on the other you're trying to disprove science. ...You can't have it both ways.

[cube]

Try this then:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

[cleanup]

... or give reasons why the two claims are not exclusive...

Sorry, I'm an idiot. What are you referring to and what do you mean?

[psychofreak]

Sorry, I'm an idiot. What are you referring to and what do you mean?

You can argue that there is Special Creation AND Evolution...

[adrianblaine]

It seems to me that your only option is to somehow argue that the Bible is in fact a somewhat accurate historical document. There is probably more research on that topic then on actual "special creation". It is hard to argue any other way for something that is based completely on faith.

[Dros]

Scientists have debated why there are no other signs of life in the universe. 50 billion stars in a galaxy, 50 billion galaxies make for lots of opportunities for life. Some civilizations would have formed millions of years before ours, which means they surely would have spread throughout the galaxy. (Obviously, that is an unproven assertion). But in the absence of seeing other life, it is reasonable to develop models about why humans are special. And that includes a Creator.

I think this is a good approach because it uses a well-developed scientific debate to point out the need for alternative explanations.

[Much Ado]

It's a bit like finding a convincing argument that the world is flat. I'm afraid you're going to have to rely on a great deal of baseless assertion. :rolleyes:

What skunk says here is correct, no cynicism. If i had that assignment i would not do it to make a point that this is not a serious debate and it being treated as such is careless and foolish. Take a stand against the nonsense.

The idea of debating is, i suppose, to see things from another's eyes, but in this case to do so would be to see the world through the eyes of a foolish few.

Sorry i can't actually help you in the debate. You have a real task ahead here. If you go ahead with it, good luck.

[BigPrince]

Scientists have proven nothing. All they can say is that scientists have a theory that they strongly believe in, with not much proof going for them. I mean, ......"The Big Bang"? C'mon, it's silly. What was here before the Big Bang, and what was here before that? How is this any less silly, or more factual, than religion and God? The Big Bang seems almost as fictional and baseless as Scientology, or even Christianity.

If you leave out my last sentence and pretend it doesn't exist, you have an argument for God and Creationism. :p



PS: Start quoting The Matrix.

Proponents of the "Big Bang" theory would say that this is the beginning of time. Asking of what was "before" the big bang is essentially asking of what happened before the start of time, which is not a valid question.

[Jasonbot]

A good arguement is that 'the missing link' is yet to be found. Man and apes may have similar bone structure and all and whatever [insert facts here] but people are yet to find a missing link between man and ape. I mean the Dassies' nearest relative is the Elephant and they are clearly not relatives (or they could be) MAybe God got got a bit tired and used the same structure on multiple creatures? But now I'm digressing, so to put it in more empirical terms I want to get to the point that my point has to do with evolution and it shows that man did not evolve from apes.

Next, the world being created in seven days (As said in genesis) doesn't specifically have to be seven earth days as we know that God is outside time and teh seven days could be 7 million years for all we know. I dont know if this would relate to special creation? I think its relevant b/c you could say some stuff about the big bang still being possible within special creation.

But you'll need to watch out for the opposing team denying the bible as an actual source. They could say it's all speculation. But say taht you're quoting it as an historical text because thats what it is.

[.Andy]

I think you're on the right track and you've actually got the upper hand in a debating environment arguing for special creation. If your first and second speakers make as many assertions about special creation as possible, whilst bringing up as many points against evolution they can, you'll have them on the back foot. Even just a rapid-fire list of so called 'flaws' in evolutionary theory would work. It's a debate so it doesn't matter if they are completely unfounded, just make sure your points are simple, compelling, and clearly delivered.

As happens in real world debates of scientists vs creationists, the evolution team will be immediately thrust into defense mode, and they'll have to waste much of their time trying to explain the complexities of evolutionary theory before they can advance an argument. Creationism was devised to appeal in sound bites, whereas even the most basic tenet of evolution (the non-random selection of randomly generating replicators) could take at least five minutes to get across.

[Virgil-TB2]

What skunk says here is correct, no cynicism. If i had that assignment i would not do it to make a point that this is not a serious debate and it being treated as such is careless and foolish. Take a stand against the nonsense. ... good luck.This is the only way to go.

A debate is supposed to be rational, even more than an "argument" is so.

You can have a "talk" about irrational subjects, you can state your opinion (and the other side theirs), but you cannot have a "debate" about irrational subjects.

Science (or at least scientific, logical arguments), and Religion just don't mix.

If I were you, I would prepare a long detailed speech about how you searched for rational arguments to support the idea of "special creation," and found none. Then forfeit to the other side and sit down. :)

That way the other side never gets to present all those arguments that are going to make your "special creation" arguments look like junk, and you come off as "winning" even though you forfeited. You will also be the smartest and most intellectually honest person in the room.

[.JahJahwarrior.]

'Evolution' can be observed in the development of pesticide resistance in insects or herbicide resistance in crop weeds, etc., but "is this really evolution?" Evolution, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (ie. my MacBook) is "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth." Can the terms "local adaptation" or "diversification" be used outside of the evolutionary context? Until we see these insects change radically (ie. not just in their resistance to pesticides, because clearly the mechanism of natural selection occurs at least to a small extent), we can't really conclude that evolution in its broadest sense actually occurs, right?

Argh.

As far as I know, "evolution" implies the creation of new genetic material. Something that never was, became. Drug resistant strains of bacteria and stuff, or pesticide resistant strains of bugs, exist already as as the drugs/pesticides kill off the other bacteria/bugs that aren't resistant, the ones that reproduce are the ones that are resistant. So you end up with more of a certain gene from the gene pool, but no new genes were added.

Never heard of "special creation" before....

Arguing either side of an evolution or creationism debate is going to be difficult as no evoultionists have shown that evolution has taken place conclusively (by having a room full of liquid left alone for a few billion years and then opening it up to see what became of it) and no creationist has ever shown that a God exists and made people. So to call either side "stupid" is pointless, and an ad hominem fallacy anyways. The only reason we can still have debates on this is becuase it's not been proven that either side is right. For example, we don't debate the colour of the sky or the chemical make up of water, do we? :)

Good luck on your debate though!


[edit] one more thought: science and religion hsouldn't mix, but many times scientists take leaps of faith--that's called a theory. To say that faith and science don't mix is preposterous, they do be necessity. Every scientists believes he is right. What is not good is for a church to kill people that believes something different than them, like the Inquisition, or Islamic Jihad, or the Christians and Muslims fighting in Africa and Ireland. (am I right about the locations of that?)

[Abstract]

Proponents of the "Big Bang" theory would say that this is the beginning of time. Asking of what was "before" the big bang is essentially asking of what happened before the start of time, which is not a valid question.

Sure it is.


I believe in whatever scientific explanation scientists can conjure up to try and explain things. If it's truly the best explanation we have now, then it's what I'll believe. I am a PhD Physicist, after all (although was never into pure physics....and have always learned the medical applications of physics) However, some questions such as this can be asked, because if you're arguing in favour of Creation, you're going to have to pick at the holes in Physics theories, and what it cannot explain with enough evidence.

I guess I can also ask what God was doing before he created the Earth and Universe? Was he chillin'? I certainly think it was a valid question as well. I'm assuming God existed before he started creating things.

[EricNau]

Sure it is.


I believe in whatever scientific explanation scientists can conjure up to try and explain things. If it's truly the best explanation we have now, then it's what I'll believe. I am a PhD Physicist, after all (although was never into pure physics....and have always learned the medical applications of physics) However, some questions such as this can be asked, because if you're arguing in favour of Creation, you're going to have to pick at the holes in Physics theories, and what it cannot explain with enough evidence.

I guess I can also ask what God was doing before he created the Earth and Universe? Was he chillin'? I certainly think it was a valid question as well. I'm assuming God existed before he started creating things.
It may be a valid question, but still one that is not answerable by science as we know it.

[robbieduncan]

1) Would this not be better off in the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum?

2) You are boned. I've just completed reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins (http://richarddawkins.net/). He spends some time destroying the notion of creationism and especially intelligent design. I can't see any way you can win unless your opponents are really bad at this.

[BigPrince]

SNIP

God and the Big Bang don't mix, so asking about what God was doing still wouldn't be a valid question.

[Desertrat]

Kind of an add-on: "Theory" as used in the theory of the Big Bang or the theory of evolution is not the same as theory = opinion.

Scientific theory means that the idea is based on the factual knowledge at hand.

Any argument against the theory of evolution as being no more than some sort of personal theory with "unproven facts" is gonna get ripped to shreds in a heartbeat.

'Rat

[EricNau]

God and the Big Bang don't mix...
I don't see why. :confused:

[BigPrince]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

It is an entirely scientific argument without the use of God, but there are religious implications which you can read about at the end. I am simply giving the perspective of someone who would argue there is no God.



from wiki
"The Big Bang itself is a scientific theory, and as such stands or falls by its agreement with observations"

[Macaddicttt]

from wiki
"The Big Bang itself is a scientific theory, and as such stands or falls by its agreement with observations"

But all science is like that. That doesn't preclude God from the world. Science is the observation of this world to try and understand it, regardless of what/who created it. Any religion that contradicts or is incompatible with science is ridiculous.

[pooky]

As far as I know, "evolution" implies the creation of new genetic material. Something that never was, became. Drug resistant strains of bacteria and stuff, or pesticide resistant strains of bugs, exist already as as the drugs/pesticides kill off the other bacteria/bugs that aren't resistant, the ones that reproduce are the ones that are resistant. So you end up with more of a certain gene from the gene pool, but no new genes were added.

This is incorrect. Evolution is nothing more than a change in the relative frequencies of genes in a population. For it to work, it absolutely MUST have genetic diversity already present. This is why a lack of genetic diversity is such a huge problem - without it, a population can't evolve in response to new conditions. How the diversity gets there in the first place is another problem entirely...

Arguing either side of an evolution or creationism debate is going to be difficult as no evoultionists have shown that evolution has taken place conclusively (by having a room full of liquid left alone for a few billion years and then opening it up to see what became of it)

Again, a misunderstanding of evolution. The origin of life != evolution. Evolution only works on existing populations and existing genetic variation. It is quite possible (despite being well outside the current scientific paradigm) to have had a supernatural (i.e. created) origin of life that then evolved into the current forms we see.


As for the debate: I would stay away from the old creationist arguments poking holes in the data or assumptions surrounding evolution. Anything attacking the lack of fossils, the missing link, the watchmaker's dilemma, etc. are old news. Most of these have been debunked long ago, and if your opponents have done any homework at all, they will destroy you.

Some ideas:
The very fact that we are able to have this debate is argument for a special creator. No other organism that we know of is as self-aware or conscious as we are. Furthermore, we have no clue as to the biological basis for these phenomena. It makes us uniquely human, as it enables us to make decisions that go beyond the simple propagation of our genes. Similar examples do exist in other animals, but the degree of self awareness in humans is much greater.

One could argue that this self awareness is actually an evolutionary disadvantage, as it has led to our species having an impact on our environment in a way that no other species is capable of. We are setting up the conditions for our own extinction. Evolution has a difficult time evolving "bad genes," therefore the only way for us to get to be the way we are is through special creation. We were created with awareness and free will, and left to our own devices, with the choice to damage (or not) our environment.

Not the best argument... I could poke holes in it myself, but I'm a biologist. Maybe your opponents will miss the problems. Best I could come up with now.

[cleanup]

One could argue that this self awareness is actually an evolutionary disadvantage, as it has led to our species having an impact on our environment in a way that no other species is capable of. We are setting up the conditions for our own extinction. Evolution has a difficult time evolving "bad genes," therefore the only way for us to get to be the way we are is through special creation. We were created with awareness and free will, and left to our own devices, with the choice to damage (or not) our environment.

Not the best argument... I could poke holes in it myself, but I'm a biologist. Maybe your opponents will miss the problems. Best I could come up with now.

That's where my train of thought was beginning to lead, actually, though not quite as eloquently. Humans, regardless of special creation, are... well, special. Evolutionary biology can't account yet for our conscience, our self-awareness, our spirituality, and above all our impact on the world. The best biologists can come up with so far, as far as I know, is that the human race is a seriously invasive species. Speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, however, weren't there supposed to be checks and balances that kept the human race under control? Why is it that we have evolved to become so adept at molding the environment around us, while destroying it? Certainly destroying our environment is an evolutionary disadvantage. The same can be argued for our ability to be altruistic, and spiritual.

Then again, like someone mentioned earlier, I'm not sure if I should use science to argue against science.

I'm going to talk to my professor on Tuesday and see if he agrees with me or if he has any tips.

Thanks you guys for all your help!

[Don't panic]

This is incorrect. Evolution is nothing more than a change in the relative frequencies of genes in a population. For it to work, it absolutely MUST have genetic diversity already present. This is why a lack of genetic diversity is such a huge problem - without it, a population can't evolve in response to new conditions. How the diversity gets there in the first place is another problem entirely...

this is also incorrect.
evolution is NOT merely the change of frequency of pre-existent genes, although that contributes.
genomes DO change, all the time. through MUTATIONS. mutations are the building blocks of evolution, be them point mutations, small insertions/deletions/ or large ricombinogenic events.
the effects vary and are in most cases deleterious or neutral. Rarely the mutations give a selective advantage in some specific context. in this case the individual carrying the mutation reproduce more successfully, the mutations get fixed with the establishment of 'new' genes and, with time, species.

a perfectly homogeneous population can and will evolve. it just needs bigger numbers to successfully do so.
that's why bacteria and viruses quickly develop resistance, because of the short generation time, large numbers and relatively simple genomes.

[pooky]

this is also incorrect.
evolution is NOT merely the change of frequency of pre-existent genes, although that contributes.
genomes DO change, all the time. through MUTATIONS. mutations are the building blocks of evolution, be them point mutations, small insertions/deletions/ or large ricombinogenic events.
the effects vary and are in most cases deleterious or neutral. Rarely the mutations give a selective advantage in some specific context. in this case the individual carrying the mutation reproduce more successfully, the mutations get fixed with the establishment of 'new' genes and, with time, species.

a perfectly homogeneous population can and will evolve. it just needs bigger numbers to successfully do so.
that's why bacteria and viruses quickly develop resistance, because of the short generation time, large numbers and relatively simple genomes.

Right. I never argued that genomes don't change, just that evolution itself is not responsible for the change. It may be a semantic argument, but mutation is not evolution. A homogeneous population will never evolve UNLESS novel genetic variation is introduced through mutation, horizontal transfer, etc. Larger numbers in the population simply increase the chance of a mutation or some other event introducing novel genetic diversity, they do not change the fact that selection and evolution can ONLY act on preexisting genetic variance.

[Don't panic]

That's where my train of thought was beginning to lead, actually, though not quite as eloquently. Humans, regardless of special creation, are... well, special. Evolutionary biology can't account yet for our conscience, our self-awareness, our spirituality, and above all our impact on the world. The best biologists can come up with so far, as far as I know, is that the human race is a seriously invasive species. Speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, however, weren't there supposed to be checks and balances that kept the human race under control? Why is it that we have evolved to become so adept at molding the environment around us, while destroying it? Certainly destroying our environment is an evolutionary disadvantage. The same can be argued for our ability to be altruistic, and spiritual.

Then again, like someone mentioned earlier, I'm not sure if I should use science to argue against science.

I'm going to talk to my professor on Tuesday and see if he agrees with me or if he has any tips.

Thanks you guys for all your help!

there is actually plenty of evidence of self-awareness, altruistic behaviour and other supposedly "human specialties" in animals, and model about the evolutionary advantages of such traits (for example altruistic behaviour). These however might not be well covered by your opponents.

It is certainly tough to have to argue for the obviously wrong statement, if you have to use facts.
However, you don't.
You don't have to use facts nor scientific valid arguments. Just as those who actually argue those propositions, just go back to the source:
"the bible said" it's all you need in this argument.
It is an historical document, it is the proven word of god, it has never been shown to be factually incorrect.
It doesn't matter if those argument are, in fact, wrong.
just keep repeating it like armageddon is tomorrow.

"according to evolution theories, it would take millions of years to 'evolve' a human from the unproven common ancestor. however, since the earth is only 6000 years old, it is an obvious impossibility. it is certain that the earth is only 6000 years old because it says so in the bible which is the proven word of god"

ANY legitimate scientific argument CAN be countered with a similar, admittedly non-legitimate, bible-based "logic". andjust keep countering any of your opponents arguments with something along the lines of "it has never been proven" or "it can't been proven", even if it has and it can.

if you just keep throwing at them the "it's my believe against yours" ball, the burden will be on them to keep going on with lengthy proofs (and there is always the chance that they are not good and screw it up), while you can just keep replying with the same one-liner.
it's likely they'll tire before you do.

and if you teacher finally tells you that you should argue with real or scientific arguments, THERE is when you say that there are NO scientific arguments, and that it is a futile and basically unfair exercise to have to argue the obviously false. If they have the massive advantage of arguing the truth, you should at least be allowed to set the rules and go philosophical.

[Don't panic]

Right. I never argued that genomes don't change, just that evolution itself is not responsible for the change. It may be a semantic argument, but mutation is not evolution. A homogeneous population will never evolve UNLESS novel genetic variation is introduced through mutation, horizontal transfer, etc. Larger numbers in the population simply increase the chance of a mutation or some other event introducing novel genetic diversity, they do not change the fact that selection and evolution can ONLY act on preexisting genetic variance.


OK, i misunderstood. I agree.

[Agathon]

Look, this is a hopeless task. Your best bet is to hone in on one area where science is particularly weak and invent some plausible sounding explanation in line with creationism or at least demonstrate that a purposive explanation is more plausible. Pooky has suggested the obvious one: consciousness.

In general science is extremely weak if you allow the possibility of metaphysical questions. For example, Aristotle asked a disarming question which no scientist has ever been able to answer to my satisfaction, namely: "You physicists claim that there are many things in the world. What is this "thingness" or "being" that they all have in common?".

The best place to start in your case would be consciousness. Materialist explanations for consciousness are pretty poor compared to their explanations in say, cosmology. So you would already be on ground where the evolutionists are particularly weak. Some argument along the lines of "consciousness cannot be explained by science, but only by some other means" would be a good start.

The following is basically an argument adapted from Kant. (Note that I don't believe the following myself).

Self awareness seems to serve no useful function. You could conceivably program a robot or make a biological machine that would perfectly mimic the responses of a human being to the environment. Such a creature would be just as fit as a human being from the point of view of genetic survival and reproduction. So why are people conscious when every single human response could be mimicked by an unconscious machine?

Evolutionary theory needs to assume that consciousness was selected for, or that it is a necessary byproduct of something else that was selected for. But in neither case is there evidence or even the beginnings of an argument as to how this happened. Indeed, we still cannot account for consciousness in material terms. To assume we will one day be able to is a matter of faith. One could reasonably argue that consciousness is beyond the ability of science to investigate (since science operates from a third person perspective and consciousness is irreducibly first person). No matter of picking around in brains is ever going to yield consciousness.

On the other hand, it is a brute fact that we are conscious. In the absence of any compelling explanation from the materialists, and the seeming evolutionary redundancy of consciousness, some other explanation must be found. In fact there is an obvious one. Consciousness is required if there are going to be beings for whom things matter. So if there are going to be creatures capable of creating meaning and purpose in the world, there has to be consciousness.

In order for those beings to truly be able to create meaning and purpose in the world, their ability to do so must be based on free will (if it isn't, then any purpose I create is merely the result of determinism and not my free thought). But free will cannot exist in a materialist world: it can only really exist if our will transcends the laws of nature.

It seems to be a rather large coincidence that our own consciousness and free will is seemingly immune to scientific investigation, and that this immunity is crucial to the existence of real persons: free creatures who are able to construct and appreciate meaning and purpose. It would seem to be an amazing accident. There is a simpler explanation: the world has been set up as an environment within which free, autonomous persons are to be placed. Only a conscious entity (in this case God) could set up such an environment, since it requires forethought and planning, and as has been noted, it seems impossible to explain consciousness in material terms.


That's pretty rough, but I reckon you could work up a decent argument as long as you focus on the claim that science can't really explain consciousness.

[saltyzoo]

The point of debate is not to "win". The point of debate is to learn about all sides of any subject and display your ability to use reasoned logic to express an opinion (even if it is not your true opinion).

It shouldn't matter to you which side you are given in a debate as you should be learning as much as you can learn on both sides of the argument in either case - your preparation (at least initially) should be pretty much the same. You cannot defend your opinion without understanding the other opinion properly - and you also must understand the weaknesses in your own opinion as well in order to counter arguments against it.

Full analysis of both sides of the argument is the point of debate. It's the exercise not the outcome that is important.

[imac/cheese]

Lee Strobel puts forth a decent argument about the "Case for a Creator" in his book. I would recommend checking it out to see what sources he used and looking deeper into his arguments.

[cleanup]

The point of debate is not to "win". The point of debate is to learn about all sides of any subject and display your ability to use reasoned logic to express an opinion (even if it is not your true opinion).

It shouldn't matter to you which side you are given in a debate as you should be learning as much as you can learn on both sides of the argument in either case - your preparation (at least initially) should be pretty much the same. You cannot defend your opinion without understanding the other opinion properly - and you also must understand the weaknesses in your own opinion as well in order to counter arguments against it.

Full analysis of both sides of the argument is the point of debate. It's the exercise not the outcome that is important.

I suppose herein lies the problem. I feel like the inherent weaknesses to my opinion and argument are the exact things that prevent me from making an argument that is acceptable by my professor. He's a paleoanthropologist. He specifically states in the assignment that we need to have our facts right. By his definition, facts are things that are supported by legit, empirical, observable evidence for mentally-tangible phenomena that can be tested for and falsified. This is what religion, creationism, etc., lacks.

While the concept of human evolution can not be conclusively and undeniably proven, there is at least indisputable EVIDENCE that points toward a hypotheses. My argument rests on a book written thousands of years ago, unconfirmed in modern times, and only accepted as an historical text because of its prevalence. It's not contemporary, it has no evidence, only hearsay and stories and it is completely up to open interpretation.

And making an argument based on that, I don't know if my professor will accept it. At this point it's not about winning or losing the debate. That doesn't affect my mark. It's my ability to make a coherent, logical argument, which, by his standards, may be impossible in my case.

[saltyzoo]

I suppose herein lies the problem. I feel like the inherent weaknesses to my opinion and argument are the exact things that prevent me from making an argument that is acceptable by my professor. He's a paleoanthropologist. He specifically states in the assignment that we need to have our facts right. By his definition, facts are things that are supported by legit, empirical, observable evidence for mentally-tangible phenomena that can be tested for and falsified. This is what religion, creationism, etc., lacks.

While the concept of human evolution can not be conclusively and undeniably proven, there is at least indisputable EVIDENCE that points toward a hypotheses. My argument rests on a book written thousands of years ago, unconfirmed in modern times, and only accepted as an historical text because of its prevalence. It's not contemporary, it has no evidence, only hearsay and stories and it is completely up to open interpretation.

And making an argument based on that, I don't know if my professor will accept it. At this point it's not about winning or losing the debate. That doesn't affect my mark. It's my ability to make a coherent, logical argument, which, by his standards, may be impossible in my case.

It sounds to me like you need to do a lot more research. Your side is not indefensible. You just believe the other side so strongly you're not being objective. I'm not saying it's easy to do. But it seems like you are dismissing every argument for your case because you don't believe in it. You don't have to believe in an argument to make it in a debate. But you should try to come up with a defense for it when you are called on it. That's the hard part to do if you feel strongly against what you are arguing for.

This site is an excellent starting point on the subject if you haven't seen it yet. http://www.talkorigins.org/

and http://www.trueorigin.org/ is the site you really need.

[Bosunsfate]

Is that like Special Education? Creationisn for retards?

Sorry, but you are screwed.:rolleyes:

[SMM]

I am curious. Did you finish your project and how did you do?

[-::ubermann::-]

If we can't explain the origin of everything, we should say "I don't know" instead of teaching imaginary things

[BigPrince]

If we can't explain the origin of everything, we should say "I don't know" instead of teaching imaginary things

Well you have to start somewhere....so you start with an idea and move from there to either reinforce or criticize the argument...

[cleanup]

I am curious. Did you finish your project and how did you do?


We haven't finished it. We're still formulating ideas. The group met again today and we're pretty set on the direciton we're going. We're also going to listen in on the other debate and maybe steal some ideas from the Creationism group.

Besides that our course is pretty much what was stated here. We're hoping the other group will assume that we're going to push the traditional creationism arguments—irreducible complexity, the mousetrap analogy, quotes from the Bible, diluvialism, flaws in fossil-dating techniques... we're steering away from these and going a more general, rational route that will make the audience think "Maybe they're right." Our argument consists of almost no proof for special creation, only problems that open the possibility of special creation being a plausible explanation. Hopefully with this approach we'll catch the human evolution group off guard and give our angle a bit of credit through reasonable questions.

I'll let you know how it progresses! Thanks for all of your help :) Anymore tips or comments or criticism would be appreciated.

[Stella]

Your on to a loser, I.D doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

You have more of a chance if you don't quote from the bible since that would be the death nail. Stay away from religion.



We haven't finished it. We're still formulating ideas. The group met again today and we're pretty set on the direciton we're going. We're also going to listen in on the other debate and maybe steal some ideas from the Creationism group.

Besides that our course is pretty much what was stated here. We're hoping the other group will assume that we're going to push the traditional creationism arguments—irreducible complexity, the mousetrap analogy, quotes from the Bible, diluvialism, flaws in fossil-dating techniques... we're steering away from these and going a more general, rational route that will make the audience think "Maybe they're right." Our argument consists of almost no proof for special creation, only problems that open the possibility of special creation being a plausible explanation. Hopefully with this approach we'll catch the human evolution group off guard and give our angle a bit of credit through reasonable questions.

I'll let you know how it progresses! Thanks for all of your help :) Anymore tips or comments or criticism would be appreciated.

[benlee]

I feel as though your side is the more "fun" side of the debate.
You have some many different ways of arguing.

If you want to go the normal route you could argue:
1) we are so complex we must be the work of an intelligent designer. Use the Mount Rushmore example. By looking at it you can tell it was created by an intelligent designer (humans).
2) We are moral creatures with conscious and such (would be striking to be the product of random evolution).
3) An intelligent designer assembled a simple creature long ago and let evolution take over. That way all the evolution facts could be sustained and you could then argue faith.
--Why is it that humans are disposed to pray to god in times of extreme emergency (obviously an argument against this would be social influences; but you could argue that the idea of an intelligent designer has been around for centuries longer than any evolutionary science.)

Philosophical route:

If you believe in god and he doesn't exist--no harm no foul
If you believe in god and he exists--good to go
If you don't believe in god and he doesn't exist--no harm no foul
If you don't believe in god and he exists---oh the wrath of the almighty

However, I think I would stray away from arguing that god exists or even the bible is correct.

There could be an intelligent designer that completely expels our notions of 'god'.

It would be really fun and throw the other group for a loop if you went with the computer simulation argument....saying that is intelligent design.


HAVE FUN WITH IT!!!

[cleanup]

Alright, here's an outline of my closing argument SO FAR:

Closing Argument

- nearly all biologists accept the plausibility and functionality of the mechanisms of natural selection
- we see no flaw in this mechanism and recognize how this mechanism can lead to such things as pesticide resistance in insects, or antibiotic resistance in bacterial cultures, or the development of specialised body structures
- however the mechanism of natural selection and its proposed propagation of evolution do not adequately explain certain tenets of the human race
- irregardless of the fact that evolutionary biology has never conclusively shown that the evolution of one lifeform into another in the context of lower primates into modern humans can occur…
- the mechanisms of evolution can not explain human selflessness, human self-awareness, human consciousness, human spirituality, morality and dominance on this earth
- certainly many of these things bear an evolutionary disadvantage
- the most extreme form of human altruism cannot be explained; imagine a situation where a man selflessly saves a boy he has never met before from an oncoming bus
- biologists can only explain altruistic behaviour where the altruist gains something in return, whether immediately or in the future
- how does biology explain our belief in God? what is the evolutionary significance to spirituality? these are questions that evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to answer, but the existence of an intelligent designer remains a plausible explanation
- which brings us to ask other questions regarding the validity of human evolution and evolution in general
- if evolution operates on a genetic basis, who or what wrote the first genetic information? how did genes evolve? basic logic tells us that objects containing information, whether a book, the Internet, or genetic code, are products of intelligent design
- reducing the human race to a mass of randomly and purposelessly amalgamated molecules is like saying a magnificent artistic masterpiece is merely a few brushstrokes of paint, or a great literary work is just a bunch of letters haphazardly strung together

I've never actually done this sort of thing before so if anyone could give any tips on how a closing statement shoudl actually be formatted or presented, or any more ideas, they are more than welcome! :)

I expect to go more into the empirical side of things later on, with paraphrases from Uncommon Dissent and The Design Revolution by Dembski.

C&C welcome.

[EricNau]

It's a good argument, but...

Unfortunately (well, for you) scientists can explain altruism and our belief in the supernatural using evolution.

...but you're audience and opponents probably won't know that. :p

[cleanup]

Unfortunately (well, for you) scientists can explain altruism and our belief in the supernatural using evolution. :p

Yikes. I know they can explain altruism and cooperation, I just read several articles on it, but in every case the altruist gained some sort of benefit from being altruistic, whether immediately or in the future through reciprocity. I never read about complete selflessness, which is what I'm pushing. The other group has some bio students in it, so they'll have read the article, but there's still a hole that I can slip through.

Do you know of an article that explains the supernatural?

Thanks :)

[NAG]

I have to say it looks like you did a good job with it without falling into some of the more obvious holes that most creationists end up getting stuck in.

[gauchogolfer]

I never read about complete selflessness, which is what I'm pushing.
Thanks :)

Well, have you ever met anyone who is completely selfless?

[EricNau]

Yikes. I know they can explain altruism and cooperation, I just read several articles on it, but in every case the altruist gained some sort of benefit from being altruistic, whether immediately or in the future through reciprocity. I never read about complete selflessness, which is what I'm pushing. The other group has some bio students in it, so they'll have read the article, but there's still a hole that I can slip through.

Do you know of an article that explains the supernatural?

Thanks :)
The two are very closely connected, actually. Individuals and eventually societies that held beliefs in the supernatural, would exhibit altruistic behaviors (believing in acts for "the greater good"). Groups that had these beliefs and behaviors, were more likely to have their lineage succeed than others who did not.

For example, parents who had beliefs in the supernatural, were more likely to exhibit pure altruistic behaviors, such as dying in place of their children. Compare this to parents who had no such beliefs, and were selfish and allowed their children to die (and thus, died without any children, ending the family line). ...As this process continued, the ones who had no beliefs in a supernatural being died out, while those who did thrived.

[NAG]

Okay I'm calling bull on that one. That is just using evolution to explain a predetermined outcome without evidence. Altruism isn't necessarily connected to belief in a supernatural entity any more than anything else is. Altruism is seen in a variety of species, most of which aren't sentient (bacteria is a good example). You don't need to believe in supernatural things to have behavioral traits that save the whole over the individual when appropriate.

[cleanup]

For example, parents who had beliefs in the supernatural, were more likely to exhibit pure altruistic behaviors, such as dying in place of their children. Compare this to parents who had no such beliefs, and were selfish and allowed their children to die (and thus, died without any children, ending the family line). ...As this process continued, the ones who had no beliefs in a supernatural being died out, while those who did thrived.

I believe that's applying an evolutionary concept called kin selection, which correlates the level of relatedness to level of altruism/cooperation/beneficial acts. It's not the extreme altruism I'm talking about, where there's no relation between the donor and the receiver, and I'm not sure if that can be connected to spirituality.

Besides, isn't that kind of a very loose way of arguing the evolution of spirituality? That the main mechanism for its development was parents sacrificing themselves repeatedly? Beyond that, it's not a genetic thing, it's a social thing. The passing on of spirituality is a cultural phenomenon, not a genetic one, so it can't be under the influence of the selection you're talking about, right?

[NAG]

Well you can think of spirituality as being connected to our innate curiosity. We're very very curious creatures and for good reason. If we weren't we'd stagnate and die. So that drive to find new things can understandably lead to people wondering about things that are supernatural, whether they exist or not.

So yeah, I see it more of a factor of our curiosity and not altruism.

[EricNau]

Okay I'm calling bull on that one. That is just using evolution to explain a predetermined outcome without evidence. Altruism isn't necessarily connected to belief in a supernatural entity any more than anything else is. Altruism is seen in a variety of species, most of which aren't sentient (bacteria is a good example). You don't need to believe in supernatural things to have behavioral traits that save the whole over the individual when appropriate.
You're right: a species exhibiting altruistic behaviors would not necessarily have to believe in the supernatural. That does not mean that altruistic traits could not evolve, however. The scenario I gave before is still entirely valid.
...It is just my personal opinion that a belief in "the greater good" and in supernatural beings are similar (it doesn't make a difference to the argument either way).

It's not the extreme altruism I'm talking about, where there's no relation between the donor and the receiver, and I'm not sure if that can be connected to spirituality.
Is there really a difference? Besides, evolution doesn't single out individual families: it can apply to entire societies (or "tribes," way back when) as well. ...A tribe exhibiting altruistic behaviors would have been more likely to thrive than a tribe that did not.

Besides, isn't that kind of a very loose way of arguing the evolution of spirituality? That the main mechanism for its development was parents sacrificing themselves repeatedly? Beyond that, it's not a genetic thing, it's a social thing. The passing on of spirituality is a cultural phenomenon, not a genetic one, so it can't be under the influence of the selection you're talking about, right?
It wouldn't have to be entirely exclusive. Religion has a lot to do with culture/location, there's no doubt about that, but scientific studies have shown that religion can also by influenced by genes.

[NAG]

That does not mean that altruistic traits could not evolve, however.
I wasn't arguing that. Please reread my post and you'll find that I was only arguing that a link between altruism and a belief in the supernatural is spurious.

The scenario I gave before is still entirely valid.
...It is just my personal opinion that a belief in "the greater good" and in supernatural beings are similar (it doesn't make a difference to the argument either way).
That is your belief, it doesn't mean there is an evidence to support it using evolutionary theory. There is however evidence to support altruism is evolved separately.


Is there really a difference? Besides, evolution doesn't single out individual families: it can apply to entire societies (or "tribes," way back when) as well. ...A tribe exhibiting altruistic behaviors would have been more likely to thrive than a tribe that did not.
Evolution is a function of populations and variation. I believe your understanding of evolution is somewhat lacking in that my interpretation of your posts seems to imply that you think evolution can be directly applied to individuals.


It wouldn't have to be entirely exclusive. Religion has a lot to do with culture/location, there's no doubt about that, but scientific studies have shown that religion can also by influenced by genes.
Belief in the supernatural is connected to genetics. I never argued otherwise. In fact, I argued in favor of it by saying it is a product of our curiosity, which is indeed influenced by genetics.

Basically, I don't think you understood my post at all or was replying to another person and just happened to use my post in your reply for some reason.

[EricNau]

Evolution is a function of populations and variation. I believe your understanding of evolution is somewhat lacking in that my interpretation of your posts seems to imply that you think evolution can be directly applied to individuals.
I understand that, if you look again, I was applying the evolutionary process to "tribes" (for lack of a better word). If that's in some way incorrect, please let me know.

Belief in the supernatural is connected to genetics. I never argued otherwise. In fact, I argued in favor of it by saying it is a product of our curiosity, which is indeed influenced by genetics.

Basically, I don't think you understood my post at all or was replying to another person and just happened to use my post in your reply for some reason.
Look again, those comments were not in response to one of your posts. ;)

[NAG]

Whoops. I hate how this board only has one level of quotes. Made me lose who you were talking to.

Anyway, yeah evolution could be applied to "tribes" as long as they were discrete populations.

[cleanup]

Nearly all biologists accept the plausibility and functionality of evolution and the mechanism of natural selection. We see no flaw in this mechanism and recognize how it can lead to such evolutionary phenomena as pesticide resistance in pests or antibiotic resistance in bacterial cultures, or even the development of specialised body structures.

Irregardless of the fact that evolutionary biology has never empirically shown that the evolution of one lifeform into another in the context of lower primates into modern humans can occur, the mechanism of natural selection and its proposed propagation of evolution do not adequately explain many tenets of the human race.

The mechanisms of evolution cannot explain human selflessness, human self-awareness, human consciousness, spirituality, morality and most importantly, dominance on this earth. Many of these things most certainly bear an evolutionary disadvantage.

How can biologists explain the sense of morality that often bestows us to stand in opposition to our own country, or even our own kin? How can biologists explain our ability to know the difference between right and wrong, between good and evil, and to stop ourselves from doing certain things, or push us to do certain things, no matter how much benefit or harm they may bring to ourselves.

As an example, in evolutionary terms, the most extreme form of human altruism cannot be explained. Imagine a situation where a man standing at a bus stop saves the life of a child, attempting to cross the street, from an oncoming bus. The man had never met the boy before that day. There was no relation between the two of them, and yet the man risked his life to save the boy, bringing no benefit to himself. In addition, the man wishes to remain anonymous in the media. Biologists can explain forms of altruism and cooperation where the altruist gains some sort of benefit from being altruistic, or if the recipient is closely related to the individual. This however, is often not the case in human altruism. Non-profit organizations, protest groups, charity groups, volunteers and everyday people exhibit an extremely potent sense of morality and commit much time, money, resources and effort into helping other people they have no relation to, and likely will never meet or meet again. Clearly something other than natural selection is acting on the human race, perhaps the force of a greater good or the will of an intelligent designer.

Pondering the origins of morality brings us to ponder religion. How does evolution explain our belief in God? What is the evolutionary significance to spirituality? These questions and others are questions that biologists are hard-pressed to answer, but the existence of an intelligent designer remains a very plausible explanation.

Finally, how is it that humans can exhibit such domineering control over the earth and its inhabitants, whether animal or plant? According to ecological scientists and environmentalists, we are not only overexploiting our resources and destroying the natural world, but we are also overpopulating the earth. In nature, checks and balances keep populations from becoming too saturated; however, humans have seemingly broken free of the laws of nature, having no natural predators, curing diseases that would normally kill us, and overexploiting our very limited resources. This overpopulation and self-destruction of one’s own environment is certainly an evolutionary disadvantage, and yet we continue to consume and destroy.
These holes in evolutionary theory bring us to raise other questions regarding the validity of human evolution and evolution in general.

If evolution operates on a genetic basis, and assuming that all lifeforms on earth are the result of evolutionary processes, what was the process or event that gave rise to the first genetic information? Something or someone had to have created the first genetic code upon which the mechanisms of evolution could act. Basic logic and experience tells us that objects containing complex information, whether a book, the Internet, or genetic code, are products of purposeful and intelligent design. We see this complexity in the human body and the human mind, and yet we assume that it was created randomly. Consequently, we cannot ignore the possibility that the root of this complexity is that of an intelligent designer.

Further questions arise in the topic of the human fossil record. The gaps and inconsistencies associated with the record cannot be ignored. The unknown origin of the Homo genus and the newfound discovery that Homo habilis and Homo erectus allegedly once coexisted and are therefore members of separate lineages suggest that the evidence for human evolution is lacking and must come under intense scrutiny. These unknowns reveal further weaknesses and confusion in the theory of human evolution. In a recent Associated Press article titled, “African fossils paint messy picture of human evolution,” an evolutionary biologist reportedly said, “We know nothing about how the human line actually emerged from apes.” Indeed, we aren’t doing a very good job of explaining how modern humans came to be in evolutionary terms. Yet we are doing a good job at reducing the human race to nothing but a mass of randomly and purposelessly amalgamated molecules. However, doing this is like saying a magnificent artistic masterpiece is merely a few brushstrokes of paint, or a great literary work is just a bunch of letters haphazardly strung together.

[Don't panic]

a reasonable conclusive argument, at least in the first half, given the losing proposition you were called to defend.

the major flaws i think are
- the domineering part; where i think you points argue exactly opposite the point you want to make, as the "dominant" position seem to be much more easily ascribed to evolutionary mechanisms rather than the opposite, and certainly don't point to any evidence against evolution.
intelligence is a product of evolution, so our technological exploits are bvious evolutinary advantages.
further, since we are not the "final product", as i am sure your opponents will claim, than a terminally disadvantageous behavior will eventually weed us out, unless we are able to adapt (another evoluted human characteristic). it wouldn't be the first time a dominant species has gone exctinct.

- the "first genetic code" argument; it could be construed as you party's lack of 'getting' what evolution is; based on evolution there is absolutely no necessity of an initial complex genome to work on, rather simpler forms of information storage evolved by mutation/duplication/accorpation into form that better insured their own self existence. see RNA world, intron/exons symbiont hypothesis and so on

- fossil record; good luck with that one. the fossil record is really pretty good and very consistent. how IDotists managed to convince so much of the public that it's not good is a brilliant excercise of marketing, but has little connection with science. and your opponents will be well prepared on that. It is true though that if you limit this part of the argument to just the primate-sapiens transition, especially i connection with the first parts of the debate, you should be able to muddy the waters a bit more.

overall, nice job in intelligently designing a strategy to argue that the earth is flat ;)

[dejo]

You may want to contact the Creation Museum (http://www.creationmuseum.org/) and see if they can help. I thought this place was a joke at first but it really does exist.

[Don't panic]

I thought this place was a joke at first but it really does exist.

the two things are not mutually exclusive. :D

i'm not sure they would be very helpful in this matter though.
they preach to the choir and use emotional rather than rational arguments, or 'pseudo-scientific' arguments that have been falsified a million times. but it is what their audience wants to hear, so they are happy.

[NAG]

You may want to contact the Creation Museum (http://www.creationmuseum.org/) and see if they can help. I thought this place was a joke at first but it really does exist.

When I went to that site a while back I got a kick out of them having a "graduate" program. Apparently planting indoctrinated nutjobs in PhD programs didn't work out so well for them.

[.Andy]

When I went to that site a while back I got a kick out of them having a "graduate" program. Apparently planting indoctrinated nutjobs in PhD programs didn't work out so well for them.
Consider the Creation Museum Graduate Stipend Scholarships, designed to support you for the full 5 year* tenure of your creation science research.

* due to the amorphous nature of biblical time, scholarship may last 5 days.