• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Persuasive Speech on Evolution

LotusMegami

Thinker
LotusMegami
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
192
I'm doing a speech in my speech class on evolution. Another girl in my class is arguing for creationism.
Any advice, or useful links?

:book: :teacher: :dio:
 
You don't need links if you understand how science works. Most of the Creationist arguments I see are based on a misinterpretation of the scientific method and the demand that evolution somehow requires atheism without any reasonable explanation (so the topic suddenly shifts to an attack on athiesm which has nothing to do with evolution). The "persuasive" part really depends on how you present what you know, and that is what rhetoric is for. Don't just keep your points well supported, keep them interesting.

But if you want to put up a rebuttal for review here, the science forum is usually the best place for that.
 
A final bit of fun is to talk about actual evidence.

There is massive evidence towards evolution and not one single piece of evidence towards creationism.

I also recommend reading Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" as a fantastic way of seeing how scientific evidence interweaves, forming a consistent whole.
How theories can be created and are subsequently backed up later discoveries. Many fields and theories working together to tell us more about the universe.

Whereas creationism gives us morality stories.

When are you giving the speech? We'd love to know how it goes.
 
You should make sure you know the difference between evolution and natural selection and what is meant by Puncuated Equilibrium. Besides Darwin You should know the names Stephen J Gould and Richard Dawkins.


From your opponent you should expect to hear an argument about gaps in the fossil record.
You should also know the relationship between Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity.

I'd just be googling so I'l let others chime in with more direct suggestions.

(edit: When I first read your post I thought it was a debate. You call it a speech. Are you tasked with doing a "persuasive" speech. Are you going to be judged on who won? That is, do you want to refute what your opponent mght say as part of your speech or do you just want to extol the virtues of real science?)
 
Also take a look at the most recent National Geographic magazine. Their cover story: "Was Darwin Wrong?"...opening page of the article: "NO!"...it should be a very accessible presentation of a lot of good evidence/arguments.
 
Mercutio said:
Also take a look at the most recent National Geographic magazine. Their cover story: "Was Darwin Wrong?"...opening page of the article: "NO!"...it should be a very accessible presentation of a lot of good evidence/arguments.
Click to expand...

I just want to chime in and say that was an excellent article. And with typical Nat'l Geographic style, the pikchurs were real purty too. :D
 
Know your stuff. Talk.Origins doesn't have all the answers, sometimes you have to do actual research yourself.

How you present yourself is going to depend on the education level of your classmates, naturally.

Don't pick a Creationist point to defend against. If you have to, simply state that no Creationist argument yet has proven to be more than a misunderstanding, at best.

Rather, go into what evolution is. Begin at the beginning, what everyone knows. Change in Allele frequency over time, how mutations happen, that those that survive to birth are often advantagious, cite examples, then show examples of actual speciation - not only of plants and insects, but Fenroe Island house rats are an example of mammals speciating over the past 250 years. If you have time, begin tracing equine and whale ancestry. Explain the completeness of these is because of their habitat, and that we are unfortunately only so lucky for humans.

If you have more time, show a series of pictures slowly showing homo erectus morph into homo sapiens. Older fossils are easier for creationists to argue, but it's impossible to draw a line between sapiens and erectus.

Personally, I draw it at when our ancestors invented fire. But I'm no paleo.

Use humor. Far Side strips help :-)
 
I think Xeriar has the right idea. Depending on how long you have to speak you might consider really defining the topic well.

I'd start with a definition of Science. I'd follow with a definition of "Theory" and how the word means something different to Science than common usage. You might mention other well known Theories. Theory of gravity. Theory of Electromagnetism. One of the big knocks on Evolution is that it is only a theory. Starting this way, with definitions, gives you credibility and cuts the legs out from under your opponents argument if it is raised this way.

You might mention a little of what it is not. It is not abiogenesis. That is, it does not seek to explain how life sprang from matter, only what happened next. Explain what natural selection is as a fundamental part of the theory. Xeriar mentions some good things to build your speech on.

To close you might mention how the theory of evolution is woven into the fabric of many other sciences. From Geology and the fossil record, to botany, zoology, paleontology, anthropology, genetics, and medicine.

Someday a more powerful theory may come along. Newtons theory of gravity gave way to a more complete theory when Einstein brought us general relativity. Science marches on. But to date, no competing theory adds to our knowledge in even one of the scientific areas mentioned.

A speech like that starts and ends with Science. It kind of forms a circle and appears strong. It's a trick of rhetoric that will serve you no matter how you construct your argument.

(edit: One other thing that Xeriar said: Use humor... keep it light. Very good advice. Sometimes a persuasive speech is emotional. You need to decide if you'll use that approach. You could be emotional if you decide to attack competing theories. But there is probably not a need to do that. You have science on your side.

The emotional argument against evolution for me arises out of it's assumption that life is meaningless. We are here only because of random chance. Nobody likes to hear that and most people don't want to believe it. If the audience likes your opponent and she makes an emotional appeal you might be following her in an antagonistic room. Humor can win the crowd back and open them to your argument. Some polite ridicule and friendly ad hominem attacks on your opponent and her position might work if everyone is in on the joke. Of course if there are other speeches on other topics in between you two then it's no big deal. But if you know how to play your audience you can win them over even if they start against you.)
 
We won't be judged against each other, but we are back to back. I actually got the idea when she proposed her topic.

Since it really is a huge area to try to cover, I thought I would use refuting creationist's arguments as a way of speaking about the parts that are so widely misunderstood.

:h2: I like smilies way too much. Anybody ever seen an evolving smily?
 
LotusMegami said:
We won't be judged against each other, but we are back to back. I actually got the idea when she proposed her topic.

Since it really is a huge area to try to cover, I thought I would use refuting creationist's arguments as a way of speaking about the parts that are so widely misunderstood.
Click to expand...
That can be effective, LM. But it will depend on 2 things, how you set it up and what your instructor thinks your topic is.

If you told me that your topic was evolution and then you gave a speech that was about anti-creationism you wouldn't get an A. Actually what I should say is I've made that mistake myself and even though the class liked my presentation I was graded down.

Make sure you've established your topic - what evolution is - then you can mention how it is being attacked by creationism and then dismantle those arguments. But always maintain your topic - know what you signed up to persuade and stay focussed.

edit: I meant to ask - How much time do you have to fill?
 
Atlas said:
Some polite ridicule and friendly ad hominem attacks on your opponent and her position might work if everyone is in on the joke.
Click to expand...

I only rarely attack a person, even when attacked. Most people believe in what they are saying, and, as you mentioned about the emotional arguement, they believe it for a reason.

No Creationist who ever knew me personally brought forth emotional or moral arguements with regards to evolution.

Oddly, I was able to get them to concede that humans were not utterly sinful. At a public speech to a religious group (only ~50-100 people, but still...)

Since it really is a huge area to try to cover, I thought I would use refuting creationist's arguments as a way of speaking about the parts that are so widely misunderstood.
Click to expand...

And I need to reiterate - don't defend against individual attacks. There are thousands of them and they will eat your time. Explain only that you are willing to offer to help find or explain answers to specific misunderstandings (call them that! Something inoffensive) after class and such.

Unless they're short quips that demolish towering precepts. "Never a beneficial mutation - tell that to the people with immunity to AIDS."

The facts behind evolution can be easily expressed in 15 minutes. Change in allele frequency over time is a fact. Explain what they are, why they are so factual.

As an example, use skin color. IIRC there are six genes controlling it, thus six sets of alleles. Best to actually research that, but still.

Then explain how mutations are a fact, sometimes making new alleles. Explain how often they occur in the human genome. Explain that everyone in the room probably has one meaningful mutation (this might have changed in the past few years, I'm instructing on method here, not biology! :-)

Walk up the ladder. If you bring out the genetic comparison between us and chimpanzees, make sure you get the math right for mutation rate (it is right, but there is a Creationist arguement that bases off the 'misunderstanding' between 100 mutations per generation making for only one meaningful mutation per generation), and explain the duplicate of chromosome #2.

Knowing your stuff, and appearing confident, goes a long, long way.

And, from personal experience, if people say they won't be converted, that means you are coming off as too harsh, for one reason or another. Don't be. Be solid, honest, and confident. Do not ridicule overmuch or attack the person. Help them, but not condescendingly.
 
"I'm doing a speech in my speech class on evolution. Another girl in my class is arguing for creationism.
Any advice, or useful links?"


By "Speech Class" are we talking about school classes in public speaking, or speech therapy? May I ask how old you are?

A point- I see this is not a confrontational debate. I assume though that you either have to please a teacher or an audience and that this will count in some way to your term scores.

Bear in mind your aim, which (I assume) is to get a good grade, rather than to upset any creationists in your audience, far less to convert them. The class is about rhetoric , not natural science.
 
Soapy:

Most colleges in the U.S. require a speech class (Oral communications) as part of the general requirements for a degree. I had to do one. My speeches were on nuclear power (better than what we use otherwise) and errors in thinking (pattern-seeking, two types of hits and misses, etc).

Anyway, just thought I'd toss that in to clarify. And Xeriar sounds like he knows his stuff, and is offering good advice.

One other thing to think about, if you have time, is touching on how theories are accepted into science. See my sig line below :) A brief bit about this, if you decide to talk about what a theory is and how they become accepted, might be a good idea. Evolution wasn't accepted because it was there, or just becuase it got rid of God...it was accepted because it fit the evidence, and it "broke pieces out of the wall".

Another idea to mention might be about Alfred Russell Wallace...who came up with the idea of natural selection independantly of Darwin. It wasn't an idea from a single rogue scientist, it was a cumulation of evidence that was leading many people to look towards a new explanation for species.
 
Huntsman- clarification appreciated.


CRD's paternal grandfather, Erasmus also proposed a view of Nature which was remarkably prescient of Natural Selection.
Evolution was an idea whose time had come. Only a credible mechanism was lacking- which is what both CRD and ARW came up with independently. If they had not, almost certainly Huxley, Asa Gray, or one of several other thinkers would have done so in the next decade. What they would have lacked was the sheer mountain of evidence CRD had compiled between 1831 and 1859.
 
I'm 23. It's a course on giving speeches.
Considering that speech therapy usually takes by the third grade, the fact that I need to clarify this does not speak well for my writing skills...

:(

Richard Dawkins is a genius, isn't he? I might be able to use the same material for an animal rights debate I've got coming up.

:p

Thought I might try something I haven't seen anyone use yet -
Humans breed animals for special purposes. Since we are intelligent, we know what we want, and we can produce it relatively quickly. Nature, in contrast, is messy.

Intelligent design gives us dogs that can hunt lions, yet be trusted with toddlers. Nature gives us panda's thumbs and insects with nervous systems that take the scenic route.

What do you think? Should I include it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom