(no subject)

[chhotii]

I was going to listen to On Point this morning, when it was advertised that Richard Dawkins and some Intelligent Design proponent were going to debate regarding evolution. But Dawkins decided, along with every other evolutionary biologist the producers tried to enlist, that he won't debate the ID guy head-to-head, so now the format is that Ashbrook talks to the ID idiot for the first 1/2 hour and to Dawkins the second 1/2 hour.

Why won't anyone dare to debate this guy? He should be so easy to slay. Every statement the ID idiot makes has holes in it the size of a truck.

I can't listen. He's on the radio, saying things like:

* "just as quantum mechanics toppled Newtonian physics..." (NO STUPID, Newtonian mechanics works fine for things bigger than an atom moving at speeds much less than c, AND THAT'S WHY PHYSICS STUDENTS START THEIR STUDIES WITH NEWTON)

* "information theory dictates that DNA has to come first, not proteins" (What do you mean by "first"? How the hell does this follow from information theory?)

* "information can't flow from proteins to DNA, because 22 proteins map to 64 codons" Well DUUUUUUH, the information about which codons make up a strand of DNA is determined by what codons made up the parent strand. Duh! Doesn't this guy know the most basic thing about biology?

...without being challenged! Arrrrgggghhhhhh!

Comments

[marmota.livejournal.com]

Challenging ID only lends it more of an air of credibility to the detriment of the credibility of the real scientists. Better to let them flail their way to tinfoil hat territory on their own. Besides, "On Point" isn't exactly F{o|au}x News; I'm pretty sure most of the audience demographic was just as annoyed as you were. Perhaps a letter to them suggesting they not waste their air time on snake oil would help get the point across.

[frobzwiththingz.livejournal.com]

I was going to post something about this program as well, but you beat me to it.

I found the whole show lacking. Unfortunately, that includes Mr. Dawkins as well. It does not help, nor is there any need, to simply dismiss certain arguments as "preposterous" as he did many times. Whether something seems incredulous or not is *not* the issue. Whether is is *testable* is the only thing science is concerned with. Mr. Dawkins, of all folk, must know this. Yet he seemd to suddenly forget it. In that section of the interview, he did no better than what the some of the I.D. people do. And to "I.D. idiot" (your term, not mine) George Gilder's partial credit, he did not do that. (He made plenty of *other* errors...)

And I, as well, am really disappointed that Mr. Dawkins backed out on an actual discussion at the last minute.

[frobzwiththingz.livejournal.com]

They're already getting way too much exposure. How long do you let it slide? Replace "ID" with "Scientology", and re-evaluate that statement...

[marmota.livejournal.com]

Hm, I see your point. My position is predicated on an educated populace, and well, that's been rather seriously undermined in recent decades.

[whitebird.livejournal.com]

The general US population isn't as educated as you might hope.