And yes, I feel an appropriate share of ridiculousness for writing greedily about a showdown between pundits named such as they are. Can't let shame interfere with Pundit Kombat, especially when the match-up is between evolution and (some variant on) Creationism.
For background purposes, PZ Myers/Pharyngula is a biologist; John Hinderaker/Hindrocket is a lawyer. PZ went after Hindrocket, who's recently been in the buzz for calling Jimmy Carter a traitor to his nation, an allegation he recently expanded to encompass the entire Democratic Party (excluding Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman).
Just as when challenged to clarify whether he really thinks that Jimmy Carter is a traitor, Hindrocket clarified that he really thinks his opinion of evolution has no bearing on his potential ability to evaluate evidence and draw conclusions. Deacon, one of Hindrocket's cobloggers, came to his defense, clarifying that Hindrocket's analysis of evolution has no bearing on his potential ability to evaluate evidence and draw conclusions. PZ Myers proceeds to gently demasculate Hindrocket and his the claim that evolution is an "orthodoxy." Much fun.
One thing that Hindrocket Deacon does that really gets to me—a common trope from the Creationist/ID right—is to shift the burden of proof to those he believe the claims of modern science. How in the world do supernaturalists get away with asking empericists to "prove" that evolution is true? As Ogged puts it:
Fine, I'm not going to change your mind, but why not take PZ up on his offer and debate him? Or, if you don't want to leave the house, try this: in all of America, find five biologists with PhDs who don't believe in evolution. Do you understand what a ridiculously low bar that is? And that you can't clear it?Is the Time magazine Blog of the Year up to the task? If Powerline can't, it's the draft for them!
