Persuasive Speech on Evolution

[Xeriar]

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?

Panda's thumb is less obnoxious than the silly number of nerves in our toes. Give them something they can relate to.

It's up to you how much you want to include. You have fifteen minutes, which, uninterrupted, you can get a lot in and make it interesting. At the same time, you only have fifteen minutes.

If you don't have an intuitive grasp of how long your speech takes, prepare and time your presentation yourself. Allow a small percentage for random heckling, if you feel you may be subject to it.

 

[Atlas]

... Intelligent design gives us dogs that can hunt lions, yet be trusted with toddlers. ...

What do you think? Should I include it?

Xeriar has already cautioned you about the type of advice I give on humor.

But, though I don't recommend it, I thought something like this would ridicule and be dismissive of Creationist psuedo scientificism.

Intelligent design by humans gives us dogs that can hunt lions, yet be trusted with toddlers... After centuries of experimentation God can't even turn out Catholic Priests you could trust with your sons.


I think it would increase your random heckling ratio.

I'll go away now.

 

[Soapy Sam]

23- OK. I had supposed you were talking high school, 15-18.

Have you had a look at "The Origin of Species"? Darwin was very interested in artificial breeding. He bred pigeons and communicated with many pigeon "fanciers" in Britain at the time. He also talked widely to farmers and estate managers. He frequently used artificial breeding as an analogy and explanatory mechanism for selection by nature.

I don't know if Dawkins is a genius. He is a clear thinker who was fortunate in his teachers and colleagues, (as he frequently makes clear). One of the best living explainers of Natural Selection, certainly.

 

[Xeriar]

Xeriar has already cautioned you about the type of advice I give on humor.

But, though I don't recommend it, I thought something like this would ridicule and be dismissive of Creationist psuedo scientificism.

Intelligent design by humans gives us dogs that can hunt lions, yet be trusted with toddlers... After centuries of experimentation God can't even turn out Catholic Priests you could trust with your sons.

I think it would increase your random heckling ratio.

I'll go away now.

Humans have made wolves lie down with sheep, by making them dogs. God has yet to fulfill his prophecy on the matter.

That's a religious arguement, though, not an evolutionary one. Keep them seperate

 

[Yahweh]

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?

There is more than enough links supplying things on the line of evidence, but some hardcore fundies are dead-set that evilyoushun is a conspiracy even when they see a long line of transitional fossils in front of them.

One of the things I recommend is a good lesson on what the scientific method is, and why creationist methods are at odds with it. An extremely informative link on that subject is Freethought Mecca - Creationism = Pseudoscience.

 

[Iamme]

Lotus---There is *plenty* I could say. But I don't want to go to hell, so I have to keep my lips zippered shut. Weird things always happen to me when I put down religion. Must be a sign. I'm being watched.

 

[Rose]

You might want to invest in a short recitation of other creation myths. They are also "intellegent design" theories with the same amount of evidence supporting them as the ID version does, i.e. none. Don't belabor it, but it might make some people realize that the ID answer is really no answer at all.

 

[RamblingOnwards]

You might want to invest in a short recitation of other creation myths. They are also "intellegent design" theories with the same amount of evidence supporting them as the ID version does, i.e. none. Don't belabor it, but it might make some people realize that the ID answer is really no answer at all.

I like this - it could make a good lead in.
"In times gone by, Egyptians thought we came from..., then we started finding fossils, (dragon myths), x and y noticed speciation and thought that animals reacted to environment, then Darwin came up with natural selection, followed by ... today, we ..."

 

[Soapy Sam]

Lotus- I posted the link below in a thread on evolution over in the science area. I'll repeat it here, as Lindsay's site may be useful to you.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/ring_species.html

 

[epepke]

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?

Advice: Decide what the purpose of the speech is.

Most people will tell you that it's all about science, and most of the people who argue evolution versus creationists do this. If the purpose is to display a mastery of rhetoric, speechifying, and logic so that you will get an A, then this is a good strategy. It's also the easy part, as you only have to talk about the facts. For some good info, look at http://www.talkorigins.org

If, however, the purpose is to persuade an audience, then you will fail miserably, as arguers for evolution nearly always do (otherwise, why would creationism have gotten as far as it has?). The reason that arguers for evolution fail is that they don't realize that most people don't give a rat's about logic and science and reason. They like it, because at an early age they thought it was cool, but they don't realize that it isn't appealing. In a debate, and as a good speaker, you will have to hit the audience with entertaining, emotional appeals. This is much harder, because you'll be working against all the emotional appeals of creationism. It confirms faith; it makes people feel important; it makes people feel cared for; it satisfies a desire for an alpha male; it's a great comfort in times of sickness, etc. It's an uphill battle.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Epepke- I agree totally.

 

[LotusMegami]

I've got one week left before my presentation. I've been reading the Blind Watchmaker, so I think I've got plenty of facts and rational arguments.

But as Epkepe said, I'll need more than that. I want to make the topic fascinating to my audience. To me it seems to beautiful not to be true. But how can I make anyone else look at it the same way?

I also would like a good title for my presentation, something catchy. this message needs a smiley.

 

[Ed]

I've got one week left before my presentation. I've been reading the Blind Watchmaker, so I think I've got plenty of facts and rational arguments.

But as Epkepe said, I'll need more than that. I want to make the topic fascinating to my audience. To me it seems to beautiful not to be true. But how can I make anyone else look at it the same way?

I also would like a good title for my presentation, something catchy. this message needs a smiley.

"The history of Science is the history of dead religions"

Oscar Wilde

 

[Nex]

I also would like a good title for my presentation, something catchy.

God-Zilla vs. Darwothra-- Survival of the Fittest!

Erm... sorry, I've had a couple beers this evening...

 

[Atlas]

I also would like a good title for my presentation, something catchy.

Um.... How about...

Creationism or Evolution? -- It's a Natural Selection.

 

[Nex]

But as Epkepe said, I'll need more than that. I want to make the topic fascinating to my audience. To me it seems to beautiful not to be true. But how can I make anyone else look at it the same way?

If you can interweave the presentation with some sympathetic statements, like "I know it's hard to swallow, but..." or things like that, maybe?

I have a rule when doing a presentation that it must:

• Be interesting to the point of being riveting.
  or
• Be funny as hell.
  or
• Piss everyone off, only if I can offer a question/answer session at the end. (Starts them thinking seriously.)

Of course, that last one entails some hard thinking on exactly what questions could be asked...

Sorry. Just trying to help.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Atlas --- I disagree totally. That's handing the fundies their false dichotomy on a platter.

Lotus --- do you know which of you is going first?

 

[Ed]

You might ask/say:

"You know, I've often wondered how people can think that God does not have the subtlety to create in ways that don't require special effects. How much more elegant the Evolution way truely is. In fact, by denying it, the religious commit a blasphamy, a fact that they are very uncomfortable with."

Then say to your chick opponent

"Do you deny the power of God to create in any way that he see's fit?"

[Thunder on]

DO YOU?

[/T]

She will say "but but he says......"

[thunder on]

"Do you pretend to speak for the lord God?"

"Do you suggest that a married man may not enter the kingdom of heaven or that we must put disobedient children to death? Why not? Because the Lord God speakes to us in parables and uses metaphor and analogy, that's why not.

You tend toward blasphamy and I fear for your soul, harlot

Perhaps God will understand that it is your ignorance not willfull disobedience.

Leave me now, you vex my spirit."



[/T]

n.b. being god myself, that's what I'd like to hear.

Seriously, saying that you are WITH scripture is disarming.

 

[DavidJames]

How about this for an opening. Props needed - one apple.

I'm here to talk to you today about the Theory of Evolution. (Now with an incredulous voice say) "Theory" of evolution? Not much of a vote of confidence from scientists, calling it a theory. So evolution is just a "theory", not something definitive, or a "law"? Certainly not something so cut and dried as lets say, (take the apple out and drop it on the floor) gravity. Ladies and gentleman, what you have just witnessed is what scientists call the "Theory of Gravity". Yes, science describes the body of knowledge called evolution using the same term as that of gravity. Just so there is no confusion, the application of the word theory in science is completely different than how that word is used in general conversation. Make no mistake, the evidence supporting the "Theory of Evolution" is every bit as solid as the "Theory of Gravity"

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

How about this for an opening. Props needed - one apple.

I'm here to talk to you today about the Theory of Evolution. (Now with an incredulous voice say) "Theory" of evolution? Not much of a vote of confidence from scientists, calling it a theory. So evolution is just a "theory", not something definitive, or a "law"? Certainly not something so cut and dried as lets say, (take the apple out and drop it on the floor) gravity. Ladies and gentleman, what you have just witnessed is what scientists call the "Theory of Gravity". Yes, science describes the body of knowledge called evolution using the same term as that of gravity. Just so there is no confusion, the application of the word theory in science is completely different than how that word is used in general conversation. Make no mistake, the evidence supporting the "Theory of Evolution" is every bit as solid as the "Theory of Gravity"

Very nice!