Wilful Ignorance

I’m both intrigued and frustrated at the number of people who set themselves up as “experts,” hold onto one view and wilfully ignore all evidence to the contrary. Right now, I’m listening to a debate between Kent Hovind and Bill Ludlow, and I’m having difficulty understanding how in the world anyone could call it a debate. Now, I hasten to add that I didn’t CHOOSE to watch the video; it just came on after what I was watching. However, I DID decide, “oh well, why not?” So, it’s a self-inflicted wound, I’ll admit!

Bill gave a really nice 20 minute introduction covering human evolution (I actually recommend the first 20 minutes for anyone who would like a clear, succinct presentation of human evolution), and then Kent had his turn. I’ve heard Kent a few times now, and what puzzles me is that he uses the same “arguments” every time, even though his previous opponents show him actual errors in his presentations. For example, he likes to use old textbooks and ideas from evolutionists who were around 100 years ago, even though these things often are simply not accepted by evolutionists today. He is told this, given evidence for the changes, yet he continues to use the same arguments. He also does not understand many of the scientific concepts he argues about. It is frustrating to me, firstly because I started listening to “experts” such as him to try an find answers to question I had about evolution/creation. Instead of shoring up my faith and my own (previous) belief in “creation”, these men only eroded it. They didn’t have answers, and they are not intellectually honest. Secondly, it frustrates me because I don’t understand why people like this who put themselves forward as “experts” can’t see how damaging their words and actions are. Is it impossible to defend creation intellectually? (rhetorical question; I’ve come to the conclusion that it cannot be. If intelligent apologists exist, I’ve not seen or heard them).

In conclusion, if you are confident that you are right, why would you be afraid to look at evidence to the contrary? Why would you be frightened to do so? How can you possibly set yourself up as an expert without being thoroughly familiar with your topic? Can these people not see the damage they’re doing?