idgaf if they're volunteering or not. what did they make this program for? if a person who believes in creationism sees it come on they're going to just shut it off or change channels. if they're an evolutionist then they're probably just going to be laughing at the creationists. the program seems to be just aimed to make fun of them. why would they sign up for that? from their understanding they are "here to discuss evolution and creation" and nothing else (phil tells us that). i don't think they were let on to the fact that they are going to be made fun of on every stop of the way..
I don't think the intention was to take the piss out of them (although it was an inevitability on such a reality documentary), and that it was intended that they have their views challenged.
The pisstaking side of it only really comes in when they refuse to acknowledge the challenges to their beliefs and then they themselves attempt to get rude towards the scientists meeting with them (many of whom are old earth creationist/religious scientists).
Yeah, the programme is pitiful in that it does act to shame the people, but it's not entirely obsessed on that matter.
And I'm certain the guests were aware of what they were to expect. Being aware that you'd be laughed at wouldn't dissuade people from going on such shows, otherwise you wouldn't get reality TV programmes like Big Brother.
Phil got very defensive in this video and insisted he was being bullied, but in reality he was simply aggrovating others. He had his views challenged and had opportunities to provide challenges himself. IN some cases he did. But when his challenges were countered he had no where else to go.
The guests weren't the smartest of people and they didn't know everything about their belief, or how to challenge the criticisms of it. That's the reality of why these people appeared stupid and laughable. They're not experts, and when they're challenged by experts they can't match them.
It's not a perfect debate programme. It didn't have top fundamentalist scientists/leaders debating with other scientists. But that wasn't the point.
It was challenging the everyday 'conspitribal' (believers in this case, but conspitribals over the whole series).
And sadly for most everyday conspitribals their views come from ignorance to some extent. When people try to uphold conspiracies based on ignorance it's only going to be found laughable by others.
