I just watched the most amazing thing on TV.
I had just turned it on, and there was a discussion of the ‘intelligent design theory’ on a morning TV pseudo-news show. The show is news lite, pure fluff. This was my local UPN station, but the show is the nationally-syndicated Daily Buzz.
There’s a graphic on the screen behind the desk, and it has the words ‘Intelligent Design’ on it. There’s a guy and a young woman sitting at the desk. So the guy says… And he’s got to be in his early 30s, and is acting like a frat boy on crystal meth… And what he says is something like this: “And there are renouned scientists… I mean, many scientists, myself included, that believe in the existence of God…”
And this is where the bubbly blonde next to him nods her head, and looks kinda worried, maybe, like she’s not sure whether it’s OK to be talking about God on TV when you’re behind a desk on a set delivering the news and latest Hollywood gossip, but the show is suppsed to be laid back and anything-goes, so….
But the guy goes on: “…believe in the existence of God, and believe that there’s no way, if you look at the complexity of the universe, that it could not have been designed by a higher power.” He goes on to quote some scientist who says that DNA is too complex to be the product of evolution. So I just GUESS THAT SETTLES IT, HUH?
Now, I’m OK with this. The guy has his opinion, and that’s fine. And he can talk about it if he wants to, but he’s also betraying the tattered threads of respectibility of the show he’s on. The show isn’t about responsibility. It ceased to be about responsibility or news when he came down on any side of this issue. Of course, it’s not really a news show, it’s news lite, because it’s BuzzTV or whatever. So I can give him some leeway here, for not clearly marking his editorial as an editorial. Boy’s got a meth problem, after all, and we all know how hard that can be. But what happened next was what truly amazed me:
The bubbly blonde chimed in. She made the classic fallacy of middle ground: “Well, it seems to me that on one end you’ve got evolution, and on the other end you’ve got creationism, and this theory goes right in the middle, and balances everything nicely.”
My neighbors had to have heard me scream at the TV… “FALLACY OF THE MIDDLE GROUND!! FALLACY OF THE MIDDLE GROUND!!” I went to the show’s web site, and it turns out this woman has a degree in political science. I guess logic and politics don’t mix. And if dude’s a scientist, he should have spotted it immediately and said, “Uh, actually, you just comitted a fallacy, Andrea. See, the two theories aren’t exactly exclusive, but they do present different positions. Offering what looks like a compromise between them won’t necessarily reveal the truth, especially since they could both be wrong. But you knew that because our web site says you have a degree in political science.” And then she should have said, “Well, our web site says you have a degree in biology, so you must be right, John! I was just keeping you on your toes, Mr. Science! I’m so glad we have these science stories, so that we can illustrate logical fallacies.”
But what he actually said was: “Mitch, what’s the weather looking like?”
What can I say. I’m sleep deprived.