Silkworm to debate Creationist at his college (any advice?)

[Martin]

Silkworm is a chem major at a college in Kansas (not sure about details) where the student Creationists have an organization CORR that sponsors debate, or maybe something besides debate that passes for debate.

 

I read about this at his blog, which he just moved to a new location and is getting settled in.

http://silkworm.wordpress.com/

 

As I understand it, he is going up against a Dr. William Lucas in a closed circuit TV debate. Do you have any RESOURCES, LINKS, advice on points to make, or whatever kind of support to offer?

 

Here is some dope on Lucas

http://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/04/05/3/

click on the CORR publicity poster which has a snapshot of Lucas

He has a physics PhD from William and Mary college in Virginia but actually seems better known

as a proponent of Creationism than as a physicist.

[Martin]

Apparently there have been several debates already

this poster, which I got via the blog

http://img217.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lucasposterupdated2zh.jpg

 

is for an April 6 event.

 

Reading through the blog you find how earlier debate went.

 

http://silkworm.wordpress.com/

 

What are some good Evo resources to use in debating Creationists?

any points to remember? any thing especially to avoid?

[Genecks]

Tape it and webcast it.

[Martin]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21102

 

Mokele is great on Evo support

 

Maybe he will help out here.

[Mokele]

The best site I know is http://www.talkorigins.org, which covers just about everything.

 

Personally, in real debates, snappy comebacks are always great, just simple examples and concepts that will explain just how moronic whatever they said is. For instance, if they say something about lack of evidence for major morphological change over time, my reply would be "If that's so, then how did we manage to turn a wolf into a bug-eyed rat with parkinson's disease in less than 10,000 years of selective breeding?" It's short, and best of all, the audience can immediately picture the difference between a wolf and a chihuahua, and knows they're related.

 

On the subject of audiences, try to make sure it's not a stacked house. They tend to pull crowds from church groups and the like, and if the entire house is creationist, they won't listen anyway.

 

Also, I'd point out that while the details have changed, the objections creationists raise now are the same ones they raised 150 years ago, and if nobody was convinced then, why should we be convinced now with all the additional evidence of evolution?

 

While it's tempting to go into details, it'll lose the audience, hence the short and simple replies.

 

Random tidbit that always baffles them: If everything was created as is, why have we found mutant whales with *external* legs? (More details on that on the TO page).

 

Basically, expect an audience that has the brains of a jellyfish. Simple, powerful examples will do more than details and sophistication.

 

Mokele

[silkworm]

Thanks for the thread Martin.

 

Tape it and webcast it.

 

I'll talk to the people in charge at CORR and see what I can do to get a tape, however I personally have no clue on how to webcast anything. Also a warning, these things generally last 3 hours and then I'm there for another 2 afterwards.

 

To everyone else, I'm not worried about being confronted with a scientific argument. I'm worried about the theatre of it all, as Mokele pointed out with his comments about the snappy comebacks. And I've never done anything with CCTV before.

 

And the assault on science will not be against evolution, but all science. He redefines and misrepresents science in order to set up his support. To check out his absurdity and the absurdity of his organization please visit www.commonsensescience.org It's especially insulting to physicists and chemists.

 

Thank you all for the support.

[Genecks]

Patient and calm responses are the key to giving a good response.

Give evidence to support your claims in a calm manner and you have won what you wanted to point out.

It's about showing your side of the argument without making many fallacies and sounding foolish.

[silkworm]

Patient and calm responses are the key to giving a good response.

Give evidence to support your claims in a calm manner and you have won what you wanted to point out.

It's about showing your side of the argument without making many fallacies and sounding foolish.

 

I'd of course agree, however there is no argument. I also don't go there to argue. I go there to listen to a valid scientific argument and end up explaining why one wasn't presented.

[JesuBungle]

Good luck man(though you probly don't need it). And have fun with it:-)

[Martin]

I hate to be a wet blanket, but i dont see how you can win

I looked at your blog about the June 4 debate

http://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/05/28/lucas-returns-on-thursday-june-4th/

 

he's totally confused and completely convinced he is right

he wears a necktie

he has a PhD

he looks like something between Jimmy Stewart and the Easter Bunny

 

 

and the audience is complacent morons

 

he's got to win

 

it looks bad, silkworm, REALLY bad

 

hate to say this

[silkworm]

he's totally confused and completely convinced he is right

he wears a necktie

he has a PhD

he looks like something between Jimmy Stewart and the Easter Bunny

 

Actually, if I remember he was wearing a bowtie last time he was here. Did you look at his site? Interesting material, unfortunately you now have to donate in order to read their papers/rants, which they put there because they were being "persecuted."

 

I know that my methods work, I just don't know how to deal with the format.

[Martin]

Actually, if I remember he was wearing a bowtie last time he was here. Did you look at his site?...

 

at your suggestion, I looked at his site and read these short condensations of "True Science" or "common sense science"

 

Worldview principles

http://www.commonsensescience.org/worldview_principles.html

 

Philosophy of reality

http://www.commonsensescience.org/philosophy_of_reality.html

 

Our Consistent Approach to Life

http://www.commonsensescience.org/explaining_life.html

 

Contradictions in Modern Physics

http://www.commonsensescience.org/contradictions.html

 

These "true scientists" have heavily fortified their position, with numerous rationalizations.

They have constructed a thickwall bunker against the 20th century

[zyncod]

Oh my God, Mokele. We've missed the beard. And the snakes.

[ecoli]

I have full confidence in silkworm, this wouldn't be the first time he presented a good argument against ID, and have a room full of people change their minds about the presenter.

[swansont]

Hate to be a downer, but debating creationists is usually a bad idea. Debate is the wrong forum. You're on their turf, and they have a big home-field advantage, even if the audience isn't stacked with creationists. It takes almost no time at all to score cheap points by making false claims that, at first blush, sound reasonable to an uncritical non-thinker, and loads of time and effort to explain why the claim is wrong. And if you go through common creationist claims about evolution, many of them fit this description. Besides, "God did it" is the ultimate trump card.

[silkworm]

Thanks ecoli. The thing that makes me nervous about this one is the CCTV.

 

Hate to be a downer, but debating creationists is usually a bad idea. Debate is the wrong forum. You're on their turf, and they have a big home-field advantage, even if the audience isn't stacked with creationists. It takes almost no time at all to score cheap points by making false claims that, at first blush, sound reasonable to an uncritical non-thinker, and loads of time and effort to explain why the claim is wrong. And if you go through common creationist claims about evolution, many of them fit this description. Besides, "God did it" is the ultimate trump card.

 

I've had success, and very few of these people (creationism/ID supporters) are a lost cause. Generally, they're pretty pissed about being lied to. I know how to talk to them, and what you said is an excellent observation and was part of my failure at the first Lucas visit. I let him butcher everything and then tried to go back and pick it apart after the crowd (with no prior reference) accepted of truth, and I did so because it was a different venue than other meetings. Now I'll make it a point to interrupt as soon as he flubs on something I can quickly make him lose credibility on.

 

As Martin apparantly knows now, swansont the attack is no longer on evolution anymore but a broad attack at misrepresenting all science in order to attack their own misrepresentation. This guy focuses on physics (and oddly, geology) as he has a PhD in Physics.

[blike]

Hi silkworm. You may want to listen to previous debates to see what you're going to be debating. Most of these guys just don't have their science down, and so you're going to be debating someone who is likely skilled in verbal tapdancing. (Edit: looks like you have plenty of experience)

 

Also, I'm not sure if there is a specific topic. If there is not, you may want to take some time and consider where and how you're going to direct the conversation. If he asserts control of the debate you will end up trying to counter 50 of his favorite rapid fire "talking points". He'll machine gun you, and you'd only have time to debunk two or three. If you can (and so desire) put the focus on creationism, explain why it's an emotional attachment, not a scientific one. Grill him on whether or not creationism is a scientific theory.

 

My advice (and some will disagree) is to be verbally aggressive with his arguments (not him). Call a spade a spade--Richard Dawkins style. If what he is presenting is tripe, call it so. Expose his arguments. Find a basic misunderstanding (trust me, they run rampant), and spear him for it. Maybe he'll bring up his research, in which case you can spend a minute mocking his oven experiments and questioning his ability to do basic science.

 

As you can see, my distaste runs strong. Swanson is right--debate is not the proper forum for scientific discussion. Creationists use it because they can stir up the emotions of their audience bypassing the critical thought stage.

[ecoli]

My advice (and some will disagree) is to be verbally aggressive with his arguments (not him). Call a spade a spade--Richard Dawkins style. If what he is presenting is tripe' date=' call it so. Expose his arguments. Find a basic misunderstanding (trust me, they run rampant), and spear him for it. Maybe he'll bring up his research, in which case you can spend a minute mocking his oven experiments and questioning his ability to do basic science..[/quote']

 

I defiantely agree with that. altough, I silkworm knows that already.

[silkworm]

Also, I'm not sure if there is a specific topic.

 

Most likely, Robert Gentry, bizarre geology, and odd intepretations of fundamental physics laws. That's his resume.

 

If there is not, you may want to take some time and consider where and how you're going to direct the conversation.

 

That's whats weird about this one. CCTV. And I'll have no PhD backups, they're sitting this one out (and I really need a good physics backup but I can't find one who would work). I have to attack him the second he misrepresents something, because waiting is what screwed me the first time. I try not to talk about creationism, religion, or ID. I just ask questions for clarification and clear up misrepresentations of science.

 

The most intelligent thing to do is interrupt until they're forced to call the police.

[Martin]

...short condensations of "True Science" or "common sense science"

 

Worldview principles

http://www.commonsensescience.org/worldview_principles.html

 

Philosophy of reality

http://www.commonsensescience.org/philosophy_of_reality.html

 

Our Consistent Approach to Life

http://www.commonsensescience.org/explaining_life.html

 

Contradictions in Modern Physics

http://www.commonsensescience.org/contradictions.html

...

 

it looks like a longterm program to undermine the credibility of "modern" scientists as a group (by creating stereotypes) and to mobilize resentment.

 

in that regard it could be compared with the 20-some years during which rightwing Talk Radio mobilized resentment against a stereotype "eastern Liberal" who was portrayed as very naive (if you do what he says your marriage will fall apart' date=' your kids will be on drugs, brown people will all live on welfare from your taxes and nobody will respect the church) but also at the same time diabolically clever. the Liberal is to be resented because he TELLS YOU WHAT TO THINK. (and it isnt according to common sense).

 

I actually do not believe that the "True Science" or "Common Sense Science" program (which you are confronting) will succeed to anything like the extent that the talkradio demonizing/stereotyping Liberals campaign succeeded. I think scientists are more cohesive and smarter and more able to defend themselves.

 

but I think that the "True Science" campaign is nevertheless well thought out, psychologically well-tuned to the audience, and patient.

 

It is easy to resent someone who tells you what to think about the universe, when it MAKES YOU FEEL STUPID THAT YOU CANT UNDERSTAND, and whom you imagine acting like you should be grateful for wonders like Polio Vaccine and the transistor radio.

 

Especially when these "true science" guys have persuaded you that quantum mechanics ISNT NEEDED to design transistors. Very intelligently, the "True Science" campaign has an ALTERNATIVE PRE-1900 EXPLANATION for lasers and transistors and LEDs and stuff that purports to be equally able to [b']give you the wonders of science without bewildering you[/b].

 

So yeah, these guys are smart and they have worked their gameplan out very astutely. they want to focus the audience's outrage, frustration, resentment, and contempt on some image of what they stereotype as "modern science" (as contrasted with their "commonsense true science").

 

So far all I've been able to do is think about it. Can't come up with suggestions. very tough challenge. I will try to think of some points a debater could make against these bozos.

[GutZ]

Even if you get one person its a success. Even giving people an alternative view might be enough to start a slow reaction. These people at the meeting may not change their view instantly, there will always be a struggle between ideology and science. Even if they start to research it out to disproving it, thats a gain to your goal.

 

Science doesn't hold all the answers where Ideology does. That's tough to ask someone who has all the answers to drop it and go back to the unknown.

 

Don't think of it as failure, regardless of what happens.

[Martin]

I like the responses a whole lot that you have been getting, silkworm. If you can put them together it might work out.

 

mine are of the pessimistic kind, mostly, but they are balanced by some who see the positive.

 

what Im thinking now is a modest goal to just plant one seed of doubt Like maybe this:

 

A. I think you misrepresent modern science. Within the community of working scientists there are disagreements which dont come out in your picture. It's not unanimous by any means. For example David Mermin does not speak for the entire community when he says "the moon is only there when someone observes it". I believe that Mermin's position is controversial---and doubt that most professional physicists would agree with his statement.

 

B. You have presented us with your own version of fundamental physical law. You appear to claim that your version can replace conventional science as it has developed over the past century. You claim your model goes back to pre-1900 basics and is able to explain the phenomena observed to date. If this is not too personal a question, let's imagine for a moment that you were appointed White House Science Advisor. How would you wish to redirect the country's particle physics research programs? Would you want experiments performed to test your own theories, or would you simply advise canceling Federally funded research at the Nation's laboratories?

Scientists are traditionally cautious about believing new theories. I assume you have considered the possibility that your "True Science" theory of matter COULD BE WRONG. In that case there might be serious consequences if it were adopted.

 

C. You propose the "True Science" basis of natural law as if it should replace conventional physics---something not cast in concrete but subject to continual testing and revision. Have you devised some EXPERIMENTAL TESTS for your theory, whereby it makes predictions different from those of conventional physics, so that one could verify by experiment whether its predictions are more accurate or less accuate than those of commonly accepted theories?

 

D. Unfortunately as a college chem major I am not prepared to discuss with you the proposed experimental tests of "True Science" theory in detail. But I assume that as a good-faith scientist you have already thought about testing your theories. The custom is to openly publish experimental results so that others can check them by duplicating them. [LUCAS may have a list of proposed experiments and stories of how his results were suppressed, hushed up, or ignored. Or he may have confirmed his theories by experiment but published in other than standard peer-review journals]

 

Without going into the technical details (since I can't adequately do that) I want to express my concern that you may be offering your notions of physical science as true WITHOUT THEM ACTUALLY HAVING BEEN TESTED.

 

(he may be able to satisfy the audience with evidence that "true science" has been adequately tested, just not openly published, but at least this puts him a little on the defensive)

====================

 

I may have actually just gone over familiar ground, you may have already been making all these points with him, so what I post here is nothing new. but anyway that is how I see one could maybe not WIN but plant a little doubt.

[silkworm]

it looks like a longterm program to undermine the credibility of "modern" scientists as a group (by creating stereotypes) and to mobilize resentment.

 

in that regard it could be compared with the 20-some years during which rightwing Talk Radio mobilized resentment against a stereotype "eastern Liberal" who was portrayed as very naive (if you do what he says your marriage will fall apart' date=' your kids will be on drugs, brown people will all live on welfare from your taxes and nobody will respect the church) but also at the same time diabolically clever. the Liberal is to be resented because he TELLS YOU WHAT TO THINK. (and it isnt according to common sense).

 

I actually do not believe that the "True Science" or "Common Sense Science" program (which you are confronting) will succeed to anything like the extent that the talkradio demonizing/stereotyping Liberals campaign succeeded. I think scientists are more cohesive and smarter and more able to defend themselves.

 

but I think that the "True Science" campaign is nevertheless well thought out, psychologically well-tuned to the audience, and patient.

 

It is easy to resent someone who tells you what to think about the universe, when it MAKES YOU FEEL STUPID THAT YOU CANT UNDERSTAND, and whom you imagine acting like you should be grateful for wonders like Polio Vaccine and the transistor radio.

 

Especially when these "true science" guys have persuaded you that quantum mechanics ISNT NEEDED to design transistors. Very intelligently, the "True Science" campaign has an ALTERNATIVE PRE-1900 EXPLANATION for lasers and transistors and LEDs and stuff that purports to be equally able to [b']give you the wonders of science without bewildering you[/b].

 

So yeah, these guys are smart and they have worked their gameplan out very astutely. they want to focus the audience's outrage, frustration, resentment, and contempt on some image of what they stereotype as "modern science" (as contrasted with their "commonsense true science").

 

So far all I've been able to do is think about it. Can't come up with suggestions. very tough challenge. I will try to think of some points a debater could make against these bozos.

 

 

The trouble is all of his content is so paranoid and bizarre (and he has no accountability) that he's hard to pin down, but I did do it a couple of times in our first exchange. I find it interesting that you've made the relationship you did with Right Wing Talk Radio. There is a plan in place: The Wedge Strategy

 

I wish they did work their game plan a little more solidly, however. His overhead's totally botched many things, most insulting Uranium decay and the concept that losing or gaining an electron will lead to a different atomic species.

 

He gets a lot of play by calling himself a maverick and giving a lot of paranoid speech. He talks about vast conspiracies to feed the christian persecution fantasy, so by pointing out what specifically the difference between an ion and an isotope is I looked like "the man" trying to keep the crowd down to many.

 

Anyway, it's all the same tactics as the political ones, as this is a political movement.

[silkworm]

Even if you get one person its a success. Even giving people an alternative view might be enough to start a slow reaction. These people at the meeting may not change their view instantly' date=' there will always be a struggle between ideology and science. Even if they start to research it out to disproving it, thats a gain to your goal.

 

Science doesn't hold all the answers where Ideology does. That's tough to ask someone who has all the answers to drop it and go back to the unknown.

 

Don't think of it as failure, regardless of what happens.[/quote']

 

Yeah, that's about the only good feeling I got Lucas' first visit. If it wasn't for my presence, no one would be there fighting for the crowd.

[Phi for All]

Silkworm, I've worked in front of cameras before and here's a few tips:

1. Practice holding your "neutral face" in front of a mirror. This should be a look that is attentive, focussed, friendly and sincere. It's the look you use while the other guy is talking. Depending on how sophisticated they are, they may have a camera on each speaker and a director who decides which camera is "hot". If your face is too emotional while the other guy speaking, or if you're shaking your head, looking hostile or bored the director may key in on you and it just makes you look bad. If you take notes when the other guy is talking, the neutral face makes you still look attentive even though your eyes are directed down at your notes.

 

2. Make sure you stand steady and keep your gestures small and controlled. Rocking back and forth on your feet and making broad hand gestures is very common when you're on stage and being passionate. For the camera, however, this nervous energy gets wasted by superfluous movement. The cameraman is going to frame you the best way he can, and if you are all over the place he's going to zoom out and you'll look smaller than your opponent. Close-ups are powerful and you want the cameraman to feel confident that you're not going to move out of frame if he zooms in.

 

3. The camera is just one part of your audience. If you've done a lot of public debate, you probably direct part of your speaking at your opponent, and then divide up the audience into sections so you speak to the whole auditorium. Just remember to direct parts of your debate to the audience on the other end of the camera. Turn your head, shoulders and hips to accomplish this rather than repositioning your feet (so you don't lose your camera framing).

 

4. Keep your hands away from your face. First off, it's never good to block your face while on camera, and secondly, it always looks shifty. Nervous habits like tugging a mustache, pulling your lower lip, finger-combing your hair, scratching your ear and tugging at collars get amplified on camera and distracts the viewer. Just remember that if people see a drop of sweat rolling down your face, they assume it's hot in there, but if you wipe it away, you look like you're scared or have something to hide. If you want to get extreme about it, you should only drink your water bottle down halfway before switching to your next one. Tilting a mostly full bottle up looks like sipping to wet your mouth, while tipping a half empty bottle up in front of your face always looks like you're guzzling and desperate for fluids.

 

I'm sure you'll do fine. The CCTV is just another audience section, albeit a very important one. Good luck, I wish I could drive out and see this.