Persuasive Speech on Evolution [Archive]

c4ts

17th November 2004, 07:14 PM

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.

Ashles

17th November 2004, 07:15 PM

This is a useful link:
From the Sceptic's dictionary (http://skepdic.com/creation.html)

And you may enjoy this thread:
A fun romp through the random arguments of a creationist (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45793&highlight=rock+strata)
In which I repeatedly ask why human and dinosaur fossils are not found in the same rock strata. (I.e. it is clear they lived in massively different time frames)

geni

17th November 2004, 07:18 PM

http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Main_Page

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Ashles

17th November 2004, 07:22 PM

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.

Atlas

17th November 2004, 07:23 PM

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?)

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

17th November 2004, 07:38 PM

How much time do you have? You might check out Why Intelligent Design Fails:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081353433X/qid=1100745394/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-4714148-0593453?v=glance&s=books

~~ Paul

Mercutio

17th November 2004, 07:46 PM

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.

Nex

17th November 2004, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio
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.

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

Xeriar

17th November 2004, 08:16 PM

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 :-)

Atlas

17th November 2004, 08:51 PM

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.)

LotusMegami

17th November 2004, 09:02 PM

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?

Prolix

17th November 2004, 09:15 PM

http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/archive/mind_gap.html

Atlas

17th November 2004, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by LotusMegami
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. 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?

LotusMegami

17th November 2004, 11:47 PM

I've got 15, ok if I go over a bit.

And thank you to everyone who has posted.

:kiss:

Xeriar

18th November 2004, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Atlas
Some polite ridicule and friendly ad hominem attacks on your opponent and her position might work if everyone is in on the joke.

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.

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.

Soapy Sam

18th November 2004, 12:45 PM

"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.

Hellbound

18th November 2004, 01:40 PM

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.

Soapy Sam

18th November 2004, 01:54 PM

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.

LotusMegami

18th November 2004, 02:40 PM

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?

Xeriar

18th November 2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by LotusMegami
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

18th November 2004, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by LotusMegami
... 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

18th November 2004, 03:56 PM

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

18th November 2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
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

18th November 2004, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by LotusMegami
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:
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 (http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/creationism.html).

Iamme

18th November 2004, 06:17 PM

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.:eek:

Rose

18th November 2004, 11:15 PM

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

19th November 2004, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by 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.

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

19th November 2004, 04:52 PM

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

19th November 2004, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by LotusMegami
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:

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

19th November 2004, 05:26 PM

Epepke- I agree totally.

LotusMegami

3rd December 2004, 07:31 PM

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.

:jedi:

3rd December 2004, 07:56 PM

Nex

3rd December 2004, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by LotusMegami

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... :hit:

Atlas

3rd December 2004, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by LotusMegami

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

Um.... How about...

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

Nex

3rd December 2004, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by LotusMegami
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. :con2:

Dr Adequate

4th December 2004, 07:24 AM

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?

4th December 2004, 09:01 AM

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?"

DO YOU?

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

"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."

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

Seriously, saying that you are WITH scripture is disarming.

DavidJames

4th December 2004, 11:18 PM

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

4th December 2004, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by 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"

Very nice!

BPScooter

5th December 2004, 12:10 AM

I wrote a bunch of stuff, and then bit my tongue, just now

epepke

5th December 2004, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by 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?

You said it was a week after the 2nd of December. I usually write all my notes for a speech the night before, so based on the same principle, I guess this is early enough.

As for the facts, I think you should explain what evolution by natural selection is. There are several ideas. I can't remember them all, but they're in Origin of Species somewhere. But I've spoken a few times about evolution by natural selection, and nobody has called me about if I get it wrong. It goes approximately like this:

1) Animals, plants, etc. produce more offspring than can possibly survive. (Examples: Spiders, sea turtles, Catholics)

2) Offspring inherit characteristics from their parents but may be a little different as well.

3) The environment produces pressure against those that are less fit, by killing them or preventing them from breeding.

4) Over time, this pressure will result in a population that is more rather than less fit.

5) Oh, yeah, sexual selection, too.

Also point out that nobody, including creationists, denies the importance of artificial selection. Corn, the varieties of dogs, cauliflower, cabbage, and broccoli (all from an original wild cabbage that is a different species), are products of artificial selection. The only new idea in natural selection is that the struggle for survival can play the same role as artifice.

But as for the emotional appeal, it's much harder, and I don't have a magic bullet, but here are a few ideas.

In the context of evolution by natural selection, all of us living things on Earth are connected. We have a kind of kinship. (Might work on the more newagey members of the audience.)

The creationist is, really, telling God what to do, forbidding God from using evolution as a tool, essentially arrogating special knowledge to themselves above God. (Might work on some Christians but might be hard to put on if you're an atheist. But that can be handled with proper writing, and that's your job.)

With evolution by natural selection, biology makes sense. Without it, it doesn't.

Evolution allows for the hope that we, as a species, may some day become better than we are. Creationism denies that. (Potentially powerful, but a bit tricky to pull off at length.)

synaesthesia

5th December 2004, 12:03 PM

I highly, highly, highly reccomend you use a lot of evolutionary series.

Make it impossible to ignore how often there is a temporal gradient of forms.

Believe me, here, the pictures cannot be replaced by 1000 words!

KingMerv00

5th December 2004, 03:32 PM

The most important thing to remember about ID is that it rises and falls on the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

Do a detailed refutation of this concept and the rest should fall into place.

Mojo

5th December 2004, 04:14 PM

Dustin Kesselberg

5th December 2004, 05:31 PM

9 out of 10 creationist's don't know what the hell they are talking about.
So in all likely hood you won't have much trouble if you have studied the flaws in logic of creationism and have studied how evolution works,and studied all of the christians arguments and studied how those arguments against evolution and towards creationism are flawed.

In all likelyhood,This person does not know what they are talking about and will only use the bible as reference.

But there's a chance that this person is some ultra fundie christian,And has studied the bible front and back and has studied psuedo scientists articles on how evolution makes no sense.
In which case YOU need to study these psuedo science articles on why evolution makes no sense...And do your own research to prove them wrong.

Here's one of those such articles.

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

And another

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37d00a8465b5.htm

and another

http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm

Well...Come to think of it,there are probably more crooked and illogical unscientific arguments against evolution than there are articles to debunk those articles.

What is the time limit on the speaches?

If it's under an hour then you should just focus on the basic's...Like How evolution works and why creationism is wrong,Without getting into all fo the creationist's arguments.

In anycase...Good luck,Because you will need it.
I personaly know how creationist's will do intelectual backflips to try to prove you wrong ,Just stick to science and and stick to how creationism has no evidence of it's claims.

And be sure not to loose out to the creationist,Do one for the Hometeam!