What beats me though is why they then come and try to argue about it, with people that have learnt about it, when all they can bring to the table is pure, stubborn, willful ignorance. What do they hope to achieve by doing that?
This was discussed on this thread about nine days ago. The discussion was about creationists, but applies here as well I think. What do you think?:
An interesting phenomenon of creationist apologetics is the failure of the apologist to recognize that his arguments only work on other faith-based thinkers, such as those reading creationist websites. He never seems to notice that when he brings these same arguments to those well trained in the sciences and in critical thinking, that they in every case tell him that his argument is incomplete and/or fallacious, or if he does, attributes it to intellectual dishonesty on the part of his critics rather than that his arguments just don't cut it with the knowledgeable.
Here, those arguments are counterproductive to the apologist. Here, his errors are cited. It seems to me that there is zero hope of advancing the creationist agenda in a mixed venue like this one. The creationists routinely are shown their errors and dismissed as unqualified to discuss the science.
Or maybe the creationist knows this and doesn't care. Perhaps he sees himself as a martyr in the lions' den doing what he thinks he is commanded to do by his God even in the face of adversity and rejection, which are described as a virtue. It's a common theme in evangelism.
science is right because it's science and the best answer. Around and round it goes. Start with the assumptions and go around and around mowing everything in your path. You see what you believe. You believe science works through "empirical evidence" therefore a "scientist" is the one who is best at seeing such "evidence."
We know that science is "right" - it fundamental assumptions valid - because it works. The sine qua non of a correct idea or system of idea is [1] it cannot be successfully rebutted and [2] it can be used successfully to predict outcomes not predicted as well without it. The stunning success of science is smoking gun validation of its methods.
Everything [Darwin] believed was wrong.
Then you should be able to falsify those ideas, which goes beyond dissent with or without deflection and/or offering alternate opinions. It involves showing a belief to be wrong, also called rebuttal. Remember, one quality of a correct statement is that it cannot be successfully rebutted, because one cannot prove incorrect what can demonstrably and repeatedly be shown to be correct.
But you're perfectly comfortable attributing it to the laws of nature, random chance, or a host of other such terms that are undefined and/ or have no referent.
The term "the laws of nature" is well defined, and each law has a physical referent from which it was abstracted (induced).
Most of what people call science today is actually technology or statistics.
STEM = science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (including statistics). They all exist and are all related but distinct.
Computer modeling is not science.
It's mathematics that can be a part of scientific investigation. Astrophysicists models of supernovae had them not exploding. With a little tweaking, the models not only exploded, but exploded the way supernovae do, photons following neutrinos, just like supernova 1987A, where neutrino detection preceded visible light detection. Computer models of colliding galaxies look just like the photos.
Even Darwin's belief in survival of the fittest is still killing people.
That's a bold claim. You say still, so you can't mean people he might have killed with that belief on The Beagle. Who did Darwin or his beliefs kill since his death, and in what manner?
Harmonic motion accounts for less than half of reality and occurs only with an odd number of variables.
I think I got that in a fortune cookie recently. I didn't understand what it meant then, either, but I still added "in bed" to its end:
