Plato thought the best form of rule over people would be through wise, intelligent and informed leaders who excelled not only in all things worth knowing, but especially in the “love of wisdom”—philosophy. They would debate in a rational and calm manner to find the truth; and they would rule accordingly. Hence, philosopher-kings. Now, fast-forward several thousand years later, where in a land that prides itself in information and knowledge of “all things”, the expert reigns supreme—sociologists, psychologist, etc.; in this land, America, it has one particular expert who is the grandfather of all, an ideal philosopher-king: the “Scientist”. However, these philosopher-kings live in ivory towers in utter contempt of the common man and utter hatred of Christianity….And many cannot argue their way out of a paper-bag. …they are more like court jesters than kings. Is this a simple name-calling from a “radical-right winger”—is this the dreaded “ad hominem”? No; I have hard evidence to back up my claim:
Locale: Nightline, May 9, 2005. Topic: Intelligent Design.
Watching the first three rounds showed an interesting trend: the Darwinian materialist (the one with the disdainful smirk) virtually opened every rebuttal with snide comments against his opponent and the “unnamed” cabal that pulls his strings. The Darwinian materialist virtually never answered the questions raised by the opponent, but accused him of being part of the well-known society (with matching jackets and all) of the “right-wing fundamentalist” creationist—all of whom any one with half a brain would know to be full-blown Pre-millennial, Fundamentalist. The Darwinian materialist virtually opened every rebuttal with a snide…wait, I already said this! He was basically name-calling; this is called an “ad hominem” and is totally irresponsible in any college-educated man—especially one with a Ph.D in philosophy!! (in contrast, the Intelligent Design proponent (not a believer) tried to answer in a somber serious manner—the moderator's cajoling didn’t help much).
Not only was this philosopher more of a laughing court jester--he laughed many a time amidst his repeated declamations (of one form or another): “You can’t really believe that…”—he appeared to be an uneducated boob or a straight-faced liar as well! Why? The fact that the claimed (in point two above) that all creationist were “Premillennial, Apocalyptic Fundamentalist” waiting for the “Rapture” probably showed his historical, theological and philosophical ignorance of the well-known event called the Reformation which was originated by Luther and continued and cemented by Calvin.
Calvinism or Reformed Theology is known in philosophical circles (my philosophy college professor knew—and she did not have a Ph.D (piled higher and deeper?)! Calvinist/Reformed are not “Premillennial, Apocalyptic Fundamentalist”. It was not a debate; there was no direct answer to direct question in a calm and dignified manner--it was a joke! He was a joke! Most television formats (expect maybe PBS) are not conducive to deep debates. This was no exception. The court jester received kudos for thirty-second in-your-face sound-bytes, but his opponent won the debate. Unfortunately, many Americans don’t know that. Many Americans would rather laugh with the jester instead of laughing at his deplorable manners during this so-called “debate.” The kingdom of Darwin, with the Universe-of-Chance God sitting on a throne was well served by their court-jester this day. And neither one had any clothes.