Ignorant Design

PZ Myers debates an "intelligent design" advocate on a Christian radio program here. It is typical of a debate between a highly credentialed and accomplished scientist, and somebody who simply pulls ideas out of their ass, and gets simple facts wrong.

Myers crushes him.

What struck me was how the debate tracks closely some of the debates on this blog, and the debates I've had with Doug. The ID freak that Myers debates is ill equipped, because he's not approaching the issue with the current facts and understanding of modern theories. He simply has an agenda, and does absolutely nothing to substantiate his view, but merely tries to poke holes in evolution by attacking Darwin.

Myers point is that holes can be poked in any scientific field of study. That's how the science progresses, but the manner in which understanding is developed is important. Of course Darwin was wrong about some things, but that doesn't mean that his principle concepts, or modern theories are invalid. That's just how religious freaks attack science, as they see science as a threat to their religion.

I also got a nice chuckle how defensive the ID guy got, as well as the radio host. Myers called him "ignorant" and his head exploded. Was Myers wrong? Obviously, the ID guy lacked crucial information, and his statements were flat out wrong, so yes.. he is ignorant.. but obviously didn't like being called ignorant.

But what Myers said and called him is true.. and I don't get why people flip out over the way something is presented when it's obviously correct. I'm thinking it's probably because he ID guy wants his opinion to be considered as credible as Myers. It's amusing how Myers has spent his life in scientific study of developmental biology, and some jackass religious freak tries to offer "facts" in Myers field. That's a dumb thing to do.

I am reminded of the debate with Doug over health care. Doug had absolutely no idea what the issue even involved. All he knew was that it was "socialist", without even understanding the real issue enough to know whether it qualified for the label. Doug continues that same argument to this day. It's wholly founded in a complete ignorance of the issue and misinterpretation of the facts.

You can hear Dr. Myers become exasperated in the debate, and I feel the same way. When you argue with somebody who is ignorant of the basics of the issue, and they say the dumbest things, it's quite simply frightening to realize that's how people think.. and argue... and that's how they view the world.

In other words, for them, the agenda comes first, and true substance isn't worth worrying about... and they are absolutely convinced they are right, no matter what anybody says. They actually view their obstinacy as a virtue, and slap each other on the back for "holding firm".

And this is what happens when you rattle them, and "offend" their odd sense of "deceancy".

Jennifer;
It just proves to me that I am a true Conservative and nothing anyone says or calls me, will change that.

Doug;
And remember this, you can't convince me otherwise. If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

Tom:
When somebody makes an argument about something, and after thinking about it, their view makes more sense than mine, I'll adopt their view.


I did enjoy the "commercials" during the radio program... and by "enjoyed" I mean it made my skin crawl. It's so creepy.