Evolution, Science and the Unspeakable Wretchedness of Chris Matthews
posted at 7:35 pm on May 6, 2009 by The Other McCain
Today, because of circumstances mostly beyond my control, I found myself stuck in my home office about 7 feet away from a TV tuned to MSNBC. So I watched “Hardball” all the way through once, and then watched half of it again.
That Chris Matthews is the worst cable-TV-news personality on the planet, no conservative will dispute, and even most liberals will agree that Matthews is the worst personality on MSNBC. Allah or somebody needs to get video and/or transcript of today’s show, so you can understand exactly why he is so abysmally bad. It’s hard to describe, but I’ll try.
Matthews set up a segment with the question, “Why are conservatives against science?” then went to commercial, and I sat here thinking to myself, “What?” I follow politics pretty closely. Even if you accept the “conservatives vs. science” premise, I could think of nothing on the political radar that would justify this discussion from a news perspective.
So they return from commercial, and Matthews introduces . . . Tom Tancredo. OK, now I am genuinely mystified. Tancredo is best known as the staunchest Republican opponent of illegal immigration. Why is Matthews bringing on Tancredo to represent the conservative side of this “conservatives vs. science” thing?
From mystery to misadventure! Now, Matthews starts in on . . . evolution. And he does it in the most idiotically tendentious way you could possibly imagine. Understand that I’m the fundamentalist young-earth creationist your science teacher warned you about — a six-days-and-a-rib kind of guy. As such, I’ve done a lot of study of the debate over neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, my faith unshaken by anything I’ve read. I grant that others see things differently, as is their right, but I know what I believe, and don’t want to argue about it.
To hear Matthews describe critics of Darwinism, however, was to have a front-row seat at a Wagnerian opera of stupidity, as the host warbled grand arias of ignorance. By comparison to Chris Matthews, Bill Maher is Christopher Hitchens.
How bad was it? At one point, Matthews said that critics of Darwin believe that liberals have been running around planting fossils to trick people into believing in evolution. Check the transcript. I am not making this up.
Of course, anthropological hoaxes have been perpetrated (cf. Piltdown Man ), but the argument against Darwinism doesn’t rest on the question of whether fossils are actual remnants of extinct species. Rather, as I like to point out, extinction does not prove evolution. The dodo bird is extinct, but we cannot point to any current species and describe it as a “descendant” of the dodo bird. So there is no argument about whether fossils are real; rather the argument is about how to interpret the fossil record.
Well, I am not blogging about the evolution argument. I am blogging about what an awful TV host Chris Matthews is. His guest, Tancredo, gave a reasonably creditable presentation of the “intelligent design” school of anti-Darwinian skepticism, despite the wretchedness of Matthews’ presentation of the case for evolution. By the time it was over, I had tuned out what they were talking about and was focused in on what I was writing. Richard Dawkins would have changed the channel in embarrassment.
It was not until later, when “Hardball” was re-broadcast, that I caught the sound-bite that explained why Matthews had driven away thousands of would-be MSNBC viewers with this jaw-droppingly stupid segment. After going back-and-forth for 10 minutes with Tom Tancredo about evolution, Matthews whips out a complete non sequitur: “A-ha! And what about global warming?!?”
Now, I understood. Tuesday night, I’d seen a Politico article with the headline, “Henry Waxman may fast track climate bill.” This whole idiotic segment about evolution had been merely a set-up for Matthews to push the idea that conservatives oppose carbon-emissions limits and other “climate change” legislation because conservatives hate science.
A long stupid run for a short stupid slide. Apparently, inside the addled mind of Chris Matthews, there is some kind of ironclad connection, as if the only people who are skeptical about the evidence for anthropogenic global warming are ignorant hillbilly Bible-thumpers. Like me. And Myron Ebell.
Don’t pity me for having sat through this idiocy twice. Instead, pity the MSNBC executives when they see the ratings for “Hardball.” They’ve given not one, but two hours daily to the TV news equivalent of the dodo bird, remnant of a doomed species that should have been extinct long ago.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
They do hate science. Ok, maybe they don’t, but how do
you expect scientists to take it when you reject
foundational concepts in every single field of science
(which you must to believe in the 6-day, a rib, and a
magic boat theory)? Cribbing from C.S. Lewis, you’re
calling scientists either liars, stupid, or insane.
You can’t seriously expect scientists are going to
take that kindly.
RightOFLeft on May 6, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Unfortunately, I did not catch the segment. Now that I have heard your description, I will watch it only after a liberal application of duct tape to my cranium. I watch Chris Matthews only as I’m changing channels between CNN and CNBC – and even then only if I see something shiny.
You are correct, he is about the worst TV news personality. [Olbermann doesn't count, as he is just entertainment for the tin-foil hat wearing, mouth breathing, moonbat Leftards...like giving espresso to a crack addict.]
I applaud you for your stance on Creation. There are not many who would so boldly walk upon that limb. I share your beliefs, but as a scientist. RightOFLeft, neither Conservatives nor Christians hate science, nor do we “reject foundational concepts.” Modern science would be hard pressed to be in the state it is in today if it had not been advanced by Christians. I accept Evolution, for example, but in a very different way than you.
There is no concept in hard science I reject which would preclude me from working in a super-collider, or fusion lab, or as a molecular biologist, etc. Hard science deals in facts, with provable and repeatable results. Many of your ‘foundational concepts’ belong in the supposition bin, right along side the supposition that man could never break the sound barrier.
And the only hard science concept I reject is the constancy of the speed of light, which, if brought to its logical, mathematical conclusion, produces non-trivial waves throughout your foundational concepts.
RedDotRedState on May 6, 2009 at 9:40 PM
I’m going to have to disagree with you here. His wretchedness IS speakable. In fact, we should speak of it more often until liberals finally learn the meaning of the word “embarrassment.”
Laura on May 7, 2009 at 1:02 AM
RightOfLeft: I told you I don’t like to argue about this. But you Darwinian fanatics can never resist an opportunity to lecture us about how intellectualy superior you are. (Why do you think this is?)
Also, please tell me exactly which field of science cannot be understood by someone who believes in the Bible? There are Bible-believers who contribute every day in the field of medicine, in chemistry, in physics, in astronomy — pick any field of science, and I can guarantee you there are respected people in that field who do not agree with the neo-Darwinian consensus.
Many of the examples presented as “progressions” of evolutionary forms — the prehistory of the horse is a classic — are only perceived as progressions because they are displayed that way in textbooks and museums. Go back and study the records of actual sites where fossils of these various extinct creatures were discovered, and you learn that there is no real evidence for the alleged temporal progression depicted by the museum/textbook display. It’s just a display.
As I said, extinction does not prove evolution, and yet this notion is pounded into kids’ heads a thousand times not only in schools, but in popular culture. Think about wildlife specials on TV that tell you that this species is a “cousin” of that species. The concept of shared ancestry is thus smuggled in as an unexamined premise, and no matter how thoroughly it is debunked, this false Darwinian assumption remains mired inside the consciousness.
We need only look at dogs — the many different breeds, though all of the same species — to understand the vast possibilities of genetic variation within species. The chihuahua and the Great Dane are both dogs, and no “evolution” separates them. Their diffences are the product of mere hundreds (not millions) of years of selective breeding. And a dog does not give birth to a squirrel or a raccoon, no more than a T-Rex ever gave birth to a parakeet.
How many times in the past 20 years have we been told that dinosaurs were ancestral to modern birds? But before the development of the dinosaur-to-bird theory, scientists proclaimed certainty in the dinosaur-to-reptile theory. These are, however, merely theories about the relationship between species now living and the partial remains of species now extinct.
Exactly how long it took to go from dinosaur to bird, or whether any such ancestral relationship actually exists, we neither know nor need to know. You can believe anything you want about dinosaurs — and even the neo-Darwinian experts in paleobiology argue furiously amongst themselves — and this mere belief has no impact at all on your legitimate scientific inquiry into the treatment of cancer, or the development of stronger plastics, etc.
Given the irrelevance of this evolutionary theory (about the past) to the actual work of science in the here and now, why do the likes of Richard Dawkins furiously insist that no one in any public school can ever be allowed to express skepticism toward evolutionary theory? The real function of the rigidly intolerant neo-Darwinian cult is not as “science,” but as a philosophy of arrogance, licensing its idolators to sneer at people who believe in the Bible as ignorant and unscientific.
The idiotic nature of your comment here — your assumption that paleontological theory is the end-all, be-all of science, and your arrogant belief that no Bible-believer could possibly dispute your assertion — is a product of the fact that you’ve never been challenged by a mind equal to your own, let alone one far superior. You are intellectually lazy, a laziness taught you by those who never bothered to question their own premises, much less to question the premises of those who taught them.
So next time you decide to start an argument, sir, you might first wish to consider if you have taken proper measure of your chosen antagonist. You will not insult and presume to lecture me as if I were an unlettered rube and then strut away untouched, vaunting that you have bested me.
The Other McCain on May 7, 2009 at 1:24 AM
In case anyone missed the point, I am weary of the automatic ritual of this debate. The minute I declare that I believe in the Bible, everyone who ever got a B-minus in a high school science class believes he needs to give me a lecture about paleontology or astrophysics or some other field that he hasn’t studied since he left school. It never for a minute occurs to such a person that I might have improved the time by spending years studying the subjects in which he presumes to lecture me.
The real problem is that ideas have consequences, and philosophical naturalism, as Phillip E. Johnson calls the fundamental premise of Darwinism, has certain moral, legal and political consequences that most of the B-minus science students have never contemplated.
The biblical conception of God, the infinite intelligence, transcending time and space, the Alpha and Omega, requires of the believer an admission of the finite nature of his own knowledge, his own power, his own virtue. That is to say, the Bible-believer knows that the mind of God is a thing far too vast for him ever fully to comprehend. We see through a glass darkly, as the Apostle Paul said. Yet everything is clearly seen and known by God. And as we read in Proverbs, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
By contast, then, the man who begins with the assumption that there is no God has thereby promoted himself to a position of superiority in the universe, imagining that there can be no knowledge hidden from his own human mind. From this you see that the atheist is not accidentally arrogant. And toward no one is he more arrogant than toward the Bible-believer who, merely by declaring his faith in God, has cast himself as the inferior of the stiff-necked God-hater.
Hence, the haughty sneers and unbidden lectures from atheists. It is as predictable as clockwork. The atheist must constantly display his imagined superiority, for his belief in his own superiority is the first philosophical consequence of his atheism. When you assert the existence of God, you threaten to deprive him of the primary emotional comfort of atheism, and the atheist must attack.
The Other McCain on May 7, 2009 at 2:19 AM
It’s actually ironic, that someone who accepts the idea of anthropogenic global warming as fact (I refer to those people as Gorians), accusing someone who doesn’t believe in evolution of hating science. I refer to them as Gorians because I consider their belief comparable to a religious devotion to the gospel of Al Gore.
That Matthews then attacks another person for his religious devotion, when science would lead them in another direction, is almost delightful. Yet at the same time, it makes discussion seem so pointless.
For the record, I’m very pro-science. I do not believe that humans have that much affect on the climate. But more importantly, I don’t believe we are even close to understanding everything about climate, to then judge our affect on it. Spending trillions while keeping undeveloped countries undeveloped, to fight a problem that might either not exist, or be unsolvable, seems… unwise.
I also admit that I’ve never heard an argument against evolution that didn’t require simply ignoring facts. I grant that I haven’t heard TOM’s reasoning, so that statement isn’t meant to apply to him specifically. But I do find evolution fully convincing.
Even if true, Creationism, by definition, can’t have any physical evidence to support it; it is untestable, and therefore outside the realm of science. That also means that any and all evidence supporting any another theories must be either wrong, or coincidental. So not only did God create everything, he also wanted to screw with us about it
fehuq on May 7, 2009 at 7:00 AM
I think there’s a reason why some folks insist that anyone who doesn’t accept evolutionary theory as taught is some kind of troglodyte incapable of contributing to society or the sciences in any way.
It’s black and white thinking. It’s a logical categorization error; one that just happens to flatter their particular vanities.
Assume for a moment that evolutionary theory as presently understood is 100% correct. Assume further that young earth creationists are being entirely irrational in their opposition to it.
Does this mean they do not understand the theory or the concepts required to understand it? Not necessarily.
Does this mean they are completely irrational in other areas of life or science? Not necessarily, and in most cases demonstrably not.
Are people that DO accept evolutionary theory as taught necessarily 100% rational and educated? Not necessarily, and as I’m illustrating here, obviously not.
And yet, if you were to take the Charles Johnson view (one shared by many posters here, it seems) anything said by anyone who subscribes to young earth is suspect. It’s like they’re tainted by scientific heresy and therefore necessarily crazy religious zealots incapable of rational discourse.
The truth is that all human beings aren’t terribly rational a lot of the time. We don’t take the time to think out every little thing we do logically and we don’t examine closely all of our beliefs. Every one of us is a huge pile of quicky and dirty generalizations and instincts, with a little rational thought at the very top – but that’s only the tip of the mental iceberg.
Advocates of evolution should be more aware of this than most – and their overreactions are all the more irrational for it.
Personally, earth looks old to me. Either God designed it to look that or it really IS quite old. I keep an open mind on the issue because I’m no expert and haven’t researched it as well as I could. My faith isn’t damaged either way, so I don’t find the topic threatening.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 7, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m just telling you how scientists see it. You can insult me, complain about how unfair it is… whatever, it’s the truth. I’m not interested in debating evolution. I wouldn’t change your mind, and I hate having to deal with the inevitable creationist freak-out when you have to tell them they’re wrong. I’m just letting you in a not-so-well kept secret: scientists, as a community, really, really, despise creationists. As long as the GOP continues to be seen as the party of creationists… you do the math.
RightOFLeft on May 7, 2009 at 1:19 PM
YEC is insulting to scientists. It throws out 150 years of experiments in biology, geology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, and anthropology (and probably other fields). I think it’s reasonable to question someone’s credibility if they’re willing to ignore so many facts just to maintain a religious belief that barely impacts how they worship anyway.
RightOFLeft on May 7, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Scientists ought to know better than to react to ignorance with a fit of pique and shouted invective about how stupid people are.
As for credibility … credibility in what regard? People can hold illogical ideas in one field and be utterly reasonable in another. They can ignorant of some data.
It’s sort of laughable for scientists to claim objectivity and the detached calm of scholarly study and then go apoplectic whenever someone disagrees with them.
“Their feelers are hurt!” doesn’t particularly cut it … because it’s not rational.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 7, 2009 at 1:59 PM
But I suppose I should be grateful for the admission that many scientists aren’t terribly rational either, especially when you’ve made it clear that ignorance or irrationality “insults them.” As if that weren’t so utterly common as to be the norm rather than the exception.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 7, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Scientists livelihoods depend on political support. The institution of science itself depends on political support. It’s completely rational for them to reject the party that openly antagonizes them.
Let’s say you’re right, that scientists (and anybody who cares about science) are just being too sensitive. Ok, then you can hardly complain if I don’t treat creationists’ beliefs with respect. And why should I treat their beliefs with respect? Why shouldn’t I be “haughty and sneering?” They believe some ridiculous things. I have some oddball beliefs, myself, but nothing that compares to the wholesale denial of reality that creationism requires.
Dinosaurs roaming the Earth with humans and nobody bothers to jot down a note about it. Every species on Earth fitting on a single boat. House cats and tigers aren’t related (no, they can’t be the same kind, the structural differences in the throat alone are too great for “microevolution” to produce). People living in whale tummies for weeks. The constants of the universe drastically changing over time. Darwin recanting on his deathbed. Heck, there’s a compendium of lies about Darwin’s life and his theories that creationists accept uncritically and repeat unthinkingly.
I hate saying this, but I have to. Creationism demonstrates an important failing in an individual: a stubborn and complete unwillingness to face facts, or even take facts into account when forming a conclusion that challenges their beliefs. It doesn’t make them a bad person, it doesn’t make them stupid, but it makes them completely unreliable for the purposes of making policy decisions about science (as well as many of the new problems that technology presents). Unless we all go back to living in huts in the jungle, creationists cannot dominate the Republican Party and be expected to govern effectively.
RightOFLeft on May 7, 2009 at 2:29 PM
A failing present in EVERY HUMAN BEING regardless of their stance on this or that issue.
So now creationism invalidates someone’s opinions on the entirety of science? That’s a non-sequiter. It’s an emotionally charged issue and different from other realms of study in a few obvious ways.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 7, 2009 at 5:12 PM
I would like to see a little proof on this. Did someone take a poll.
There are tons and tons of colleges and universitys in the U.S.A and some of those are private and religous. I am not buying your assertion until I see some sort of proof or at least of a poll.
How big a voting block are scientist anyway.
This whole arguement that me and all my cool friends beleive this way and that is why you should beleive it is child like.
kangjie on May 7, 2009 at 10:14 PM