I don't argue with creationists either. I consider it to be a complete waste of time. Most of those whom I've observed arguing with creationists aren't biologists, but are people who get their info from talkorigins.com. This website is pretty good but its PTB have their pet biases & misconceptions. When I hear these biases & misconceptions being parroted by those who do argue with creationists, it becomes apparent where they get their info. In the past, when I've objected to or corrected these biases & misconceptions, I've often ended up arguing with the anti-creationists, which gives the impression that I'm a creationist myself or at least sympathetic with their ideas. I've given up on trying to instruct people online and in fact have given up the landline, DSL & internet at home. Simplify, simplify.

The religious nuts are sure in their knowledge-they know the age of the universe, heaven follows life on Earth (for the chosen), etc. etc.-they aren't interested in any info that might shake their rock solid belief system-just like you.

The science professor who called creationists "Idiots" was speaking out of frustration, not informed thinking. I'm not saying I blame him, I don't. But I think it is very important for scientists to understand exactly what is going on in these arguments. I've seen a LOT of these confrontations. I work in evolutionary biology; paleontology to be precise.

There are two fundamentally different methods of reasoning which have been handed down to us (from the classical Greeks) that allow us to examine the world in which we live; the dialectical and the rhetorical. The dialectical line of inquiry (scientific method; question, experiment, review data, conclusion) is the language of science. The rhetorical line of inquiry (argumentation based only upon the abstract and the logical) is the language of the legal profession, the church, philosophy.

Both of these lines of questioning are very powerful analytical tools, but they operate by two entirely different rule books. For a scientist (a dialectician) to debate a creationist (a rhetorician) is akin to a boxer agreeing to fight a samurai.

Real world examples of the devastating effect of rhetoric used against the dialectic abound. My favorite was the example of how quickly and effectively Johnny Conchran destroyed the credibility of the forensic DNA evidence submitted by the prosecution in the O.J. Simpson trial. With only a few skillfully constructed logical ideas the rhetorician demolished the prosecution's argument; game, set, match, O.J. NOT guilty!

The best read on this subject is the book by the famous American philosopher, Robert Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". It is a book every scientist needs to read and understand backwards and forwards. NEVER argue with a skilled rhetorician using dialectical argumentation; you will be sliced up faster than you can say, "evolutionary and developmental biology".

I feel the very same way about conspiracy theory wingnuts.

You totally abandon logic here. You have no choice but to become a conspiracy theorist after 9-11. The gov't forces you to adopt one or another conspiracy theory. And then it tells you not to believe in conspiracy theories! It is one of the greatest insults to the public intelligence of all time.