[

A long time ago, back in college, I read through just about the entire [http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html TalkOrigins] website. The debate was fascinating to “watch”. How could (and still can) one side could be so completely blind to what the other side was (is) saying?

It’s a kind of debate I’ve seen played out a lot. One side makes an argument, the other side addresses that argument and makes a counterargument, and the first side then completely ignores the counterargument and continues to argue along the same lines as it did before. Rinse and repeat.

Back at UCLA the same thing happened in articles and letters to the editor in support of or against certain issues. One such was affirmative action, which went like this: (1) The pro-AA side states its case (e.g., righting past wrongs, making up for current disadvantage, etc.). (2) The anti-AA side recognizes the problem and the arguments, then lists a bunch of very persuasive reasons why those arguments are misguided (AA does not right past wrongs or make up for current disadvantage because… AA is itself reverse discrimination, two wrongs don’t make a right, AA sets unequal standards, breeds resentment, devalues student achievements and sets up students to question their own achievements, and so on). The anti-AA side goes even further to propose alternatives (outreach, using economic factors and never race, targeting resources at primary schools, etc.). (3) The pro-AA side repeats, more stridently, the same arguments it made before, never addresses or attempting to invalidate a point made by the anti-AA side. Now both sides are accused of “talking past each other”, but… which side is ignoring the other side’s arguments? And consequently, which side has the stronger arguments? Indeed one side (the pro-AA’ers’) main tactic always seemed to me an appeal to emotion rather than logic. Anyone remember [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Connerly Ward Connerly]? I admired his courage in holding steadfast to his beliefs despite frequent and vociferous vilification by his peers.

Monkey Girl tells the story of how this kind of argument (evolution vs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design Intelligent Design] is taken to court, where the two sides are forced to engage each other’s arguments. The result is predictable, but the “fight” is both fun to watch and revealing of people’s motives and drives.