Evolution Schmevolution

P.S. -- You're next, gravity.

Oh no! I'm going to be in England. Hey, all you Angle and Saxon patrons of Panda's Thumb: will I be able to watch the Daily Show over there?

This is good. The only proper (in my mind, at least) way to deal with anti-evolutionists is to ridicule them- ridicule them so harshly they shut up, if not commit suicide. (For those literal minded souls out there: this is a joke- I fully realize a better solution would be the establishment of camps where anti-evolutionists are worked to death preparing slides, bacterial cultures, etc, for us evilushionsts. For the FBI: this also is a joke.)

On the other hand, I expect to see a fair amount of anti-academic joking as well. Lets face it, Joe Sixpack in the street loves equally a joke at the expense of the religious or one directed at anyone that spent more time in school than mandated by law.

PS- I didn't really mean that we should put them in labor camps. Anti-evolutionists probably would muck up the experiments. Just gas them outright. For UN observers: this is also a joke.

Russell - I'm in the UK at the moment - no sign of The Daily Show on terrestrial TV. I don't think it's on the regular satellite (Sky TV) either.

PZ:
Ah! I bet you are going to see it in person - aren't you... Like, very very close, uh? ;-)
Punditocracy, move over!

I hadn't heard of it and Yahoo's UK and Ireland TV listing (including satellite channels) denies it exists on a search.

As panel participants, I would like to see
1. Professor Steve Steve
2. The FSM
3. Bill Dembski's Darwin Doll
4. Ken Ham

The FSM may need an acolyte to translate. Hell, they all may need someone to translate.

Video clips of the daily show tend to, after a day or so, b posted up on the website . If one can't catch the tv showings, I suggest giving it a look.

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

The Rev writes "Most fundies are loons, as well as being political/social/theological
extremists. Most of their minions are uneducated semi-literates.
Demonstrate this to the whole world, and let the whole world laugh at
them. It's hard for people to take demonstrated idiots seriously."

Unless of course they are also loony semi-literates.

Anyone who watches Mr. Stewart's show knows that this is VERY unlikely to disappoint. While not Voltaire, he routinely has more political insight than the more "serious" of the MSM punditocracy.
Plus, he can be screamingly funny, I think a representative of the FSM might be a possibility.

If you have Bit Torrent you can also download episodes of The Daily Show here.

PZ,

You can probably get on the show as a guest.

Plug the proper blogs and of course talkorigins.org!

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/extras/tickets.jhtml

Ticket Requests:
We want to thank you for your interest in our show. You'll be able to request tickets once again in mid October. Please be patient, if you have already requested tickets we will get back to you.

Last Minute Tickets:
If you are looking for last minute tickets please call us at (212) 586-2477 on Fridays (around 11:00am to 11:30am) the week prior to your show date request. Please do not request any other show dates on this line.

General Ticket Holders:

* Please respond to our confirmation.
* We recommend you arrive at least one hour prior to when the doors open. Depending on the weather doors may open between 5:20PM --- 5:40PM.
* Please make sure that you read all of your general ticket information.

VIP Ticket Holders:
It is important that you arrive at our studio between 4:50PM --- 5:15PM. Please bring your VIP ticket letter.

Stand-By Admission:
If you are interested in stand-by admission please arrive at our studio by 5PM. Sorry, we are unable to guarantee entry.

Studio Location:
733 11th Avenue, between 51st and 52nd st in midtown New York. You must be 18 or over to attend.

Thank you for your interest in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart!

Comment #46950 Posted by DrJohn on September 7, 2005 09:59 PM (e) (s) PZ, You can probably get on the show as a guest.

And there are fringe benefits: the combination of Paris Hilton and evolution would give some of our fundamentalist opponents cerebral infarctions.

We could try shaving Dr. Meyers and putting him in a bikini?

I was going to say, if we really want to give the creationists cerebral infarctions, I can't think of a more effective strategy than if I were to get a Brazilian, oil myself down, and walk onstage in a string bikini.

I want to see Stephen Colbert interview Kathy Martin.

Dembksi says that he will be on the Daily Show along with Ed Larson on monday.

You can get a weekly compilation on CNN International, it airs 21:30 CET.

I must check this out on the EPG as CNN international is on Sky.I assume the compilation will be at the end of the week maybe Friday ?

We can now receive a number of christian broadcasting stations here in the UK as well.Some are UK based (like Revelation TV, and the God channel,although it's studios are abroad,and others are from the States eg.TBN,Daystar,and INI).I've noticed lately quite a few attacks on evolution.D.James Kennedy had one a couple of weeks ago (Coral Ridge hour airs on a Saturday at 3.00pm on TBN).I also listened to one of the most vicious attacks on science that I have ever heard a few nights ago from the victory in Jesus programme(Billy Joe and Sharon Daugherty).They had as their guest a guy from the University of Oklahoma,Professor Kevin Farmer (I had never heard of him before).All the usual arguements:Lots of flood geology,no transitional fossils,whale evolution is nonsense,why isn't evolution happening today,no new species appearing,and, scientists say that life evolved from rocks (I think this is standard Hovind material).I have completed a number of science courses over the years,up to degree level,ranging from chemistry to astronomy and have yet to come across this in any of them.It will be interesting to see some people who can hopefully stand up to these people and show up creationism for what it is.

By the way my choice for the programme would be the cosmologist Professor Carlos Frenk (Durham University).I've heard him a few times on the sky at night(the BBC).A really excellent speaker, I reckon he would wipe the floor with Ken Ham and and co.

Checked the EPG. The Daily show ( global edition) airs in the UK/Ireland on Saturday, 8.30 pm on CNN International,Sky Digital channel 513

Peter, was this the Kevin Farmer you saw lying about evolution?

http://pharmacy.ouhsc.edu/facultystaff/profiles/facultyindiv.asp?facultyID=kfarmer

I think this seems to be the same guy Fu ling.It said on the programme that he was at present engaged in research for a local pharmaceutical company.Most of his delivery seemed to be standard Hovind material although the hosts appeared to be plugging AIG.Coming from someone so well educated I was shocked at some the things he was saying !

Sorry to have to ask, but what is The Daily Show and on what TV network does it appear?

Ken:I haven't seen the show myself but here's the description on the Sky epg(electronic programme guide):"Emmy award winning late night chat show with comic reports and sketches on American current affairs with satirist Jon Stewart".It's on CNN in the UK.

Ken, The Daily Show is only the best Fake News show around, and it's on Comedy Central. IMO, their fake news can be a whole lot more legit than some of the real news out there, and the guests have included ex-presidents and sitting representatives.

I hope Dembski doesn't get to be a guest! Even though Jon Stewart doesn't pull any punches with a guest he doesn't agree with, I think Dembski only deserves to be "interviewed" by Samantha Bee. Nothing ruins your message quite like a reporter pretending to hit on you. She's so wonderfully vicious!

Hopefully when this series is done they can relegate ID to their regular This Week in God Segment.

For those not in the know, The Daily Show is a fake news program that's shown on the basic cable channel ComedyCentral. Under the cover of humor and sarcasm, it's the only news show that actually criticizes our government's idiocy.

Sad, isn't it?

Oh My Goodness, I can't wait to see this. I'm gonna have to buy some blank tapes so I can record it.

The Daily Show is pretty awesome. Sometimes thought some of the stuff (political anyway) goes over my head.

But this should be good.

Absolutely right-- proudly calling itself "fake news," it is indeed very real most times.

While PZ's a fine guy, tv is all about image. A bearded atheist in a lab coat? Perhaps we can pool our money and hire Paris Hilton in a bikini for a PR campaign. "Evolution. It's hot."

— Steve

Under the cover of humor and sarcasm, it's the only news show that actually criticizes our government's idiocy.

— PZ

Stewart does pull punches when he has on right-wing guests. Interviewing is not his strong suit. The correspondents do better.

As a comedy show, this could be quite entertaining. Poke fun at yourself as well as the other side while trying to make your points.

If the evolution side appeared with a Darwin doll in a vise and also wearing a vise hat, s/he would monopolize the conversation. They could interject what a pain it is dealing with a rewarmed theological hypothetical dressed up in scientific jargon that has been interjected into public discourse through well financed Ad campaigns. It would give anyone a headache.

Professor Steve Steve could make an appearance and give a plug for the NCSE and PT.

The host is going to go after both sides and try to make both sides look foolish, so why not jump the gun.

Man, I'd crap myself if Colbert did a report on Project Steve. After all, he is a Stephen.

Incidently, for those who haven't seen it, you can watch clips of the show here.

Man, to see Jon Stewart, I'd go on in just a lab coat...

Yeah, Stewart does tend to lob softballs at most of his guests -- it does mean more of the nuts are willing to show up, but it was infuriating when he brought on a hack like Goldberg and treated him so gently. I expect Dembski will get the kid-gloves treatment when he's on, unfortunately.

There's to many good one liners from Dembski's writings to let slip by, space aliens are the best. Ken Ham's "taking back the dinosaurs" is another. Unless Stewart has a specific agenda, I would expect some traditional creationist claims to also show up as jokes.

I think Dembski only deserves to be "interviewed" by Samantha Bee.

PZ Myers, I respect you when you are expounding on science, but saying Bernard Goldberg is a hack hurts your intellectual credibility. That the overwhelming majority of journalists are left wing liberals and elitists is not even open to question. That one of their former colleagues has defected and writes about this fact does make him a hack. It just makes him someone with whom you do not agree.

I was going to say, if we really want to give the creationists cerebral infarctions, I can't think of a more effective strategy than if I were to get a Brazilian, oil myself down, and walk onstage in a string bikini.

— PZ Myers

PZ Myers, I respect you when you are expounding on science, but saying Bernard Goldberg is a hack hurts your intellectual credibility. That the overwhelming majority of journalists are left wing liberals and elitists is not even open to question. That one of their former colleagues has defected and writes about this fact does make him a hack. It just makes him someone with whom you do not agree.

— Ken Willis

PZ Myers wrote: I was going to say, if we really want to give the creationists cerebral infarctions, I can't think of a more effective strategy than if I were to get a Brazilian, oil myself down, and walk onstage in a string bikini.

I think Jon Stewart does a good job of poking some low key fun at the right-wing guests he get. It was pretty apparent that Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum couldn't address Stewarts point that plenty of people with lifestyles ol' Santorum (the Senator, not the substance, though they are hard to tell apart) would not agree are good and moral people. I think a more confrontational style might be less effective.

In that regard, I felt Stewart's take on Bernard Goldberg was great. I think Stewart correctly took issue with the fact that Goldberg trys to portray himself as a sensible moderate in some contexts, but - as Stewart stated - only three of Goldberg's 100 people "ruining" America are on the right (and one of those shot an abortion provider). I felt Goldberg looked like an idiot, and I'm not sure he would of had Stewart attacked him. He simply couldn't address why Barbara Streisand was "ruining" America while another irrelevant singer on the right (Charlie Daniels - also less talented than Babs) isn't ruining America. I think most sensible folks have an idea regarding the number of people who gets their political info solely from either Babs or Charlie would get, and sensible people take that into account when we examine whether either of those singers is "ruining" America.

I lost a lot of respect for Jon Stewart when I found out that he hated Asians. Check p. 68 of America: The Book if you don't believe me.

Huh? Page 68 is a color-by-numbers picture of congressional faces, then and now.

I just saw an ad for Evolution Schmevolution:

"Evolution. Creationism. Intelligent Design. Who's right? Who's full of it?"

My only quibble with the promo for "Evolution, Schmevolution" is that Jon Stewart said that the show would deal with the origins of life. That doesn't bode so well for the accuracy of the program. Still, if they can ridicule Ken Ham or "Dr. Dino" on a national forum, that alone will make it worth watching.

I wonder how many people will be dressed in full pirate regalia. Wouldn't want to upset the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I'm surprised they're doing this for an entire week. That sounds as though it'd put off a lot of viewers who aren't interested in the topic to start with.

As an active follower of His Noodlyness the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'd like to take a moment to point out that it is critical that we have faith not in eachother, not in humanity's ability to logically percieve the world around it, heck, not even in overwhelming emperical scientific evidence, but rather in an un-proovable omnipresent superbeing to make sure we are not fooled by that so-called "logic".
It is clear to us Pastafarians that "logic" is the opioid of the masses, rather than religion. "Logic" is merely New Age trickery meant to fool us poor souls into thinking that, say, gravity holds us to the ground when it is really His Noodly Appendage.
Science has only proven once useful to followers of the FSM, in showing a strong correlation between the increasing global temperature and the decreasing number of pirates. Science was definitly right then, because the FSM said so. And when it figured out how to put a man on the Moon, that was really cool. But other than that it's clearly flawed.
I can only hope that in this great debate of Evolution before John Stewart, and in issues of teaching our children, the FSM has equal representation.
Ramen!
- A devout Pastafarian

PS - this is clearly a joke, but if you want to read another hilarious article and havent already, go to
http://www.venganza.org/

And for anybody who doubts the FSM, ten lashes with a wet noodle!

Henry

My plan quickly fell into place: I would concoct a specious mathematical theory of design detection that critics of evolution could use as a weapon against Darwinism. I would network with right-wing fanatics for whom a recrudescence of Paley could be a tool for their political agenda. And finally, I would cash in on the celebrity associated with bringing down Darwin.

So far so good. Ed Helms was on the money in Dayton.

Where's the beef?

PZ Myers, I respect you when you are expounding on science, but saying Bernard Goldberg is a hack hurts your intellectual credibility.

Dodge the Controversy!!

Think of the book sales, you lost, Bill!

Bwak...Bwaaak...Bwaaaakkaa!

They didn't do much with evolution on Monday night, did they. Just a short blurb at the end, after spending most of the half hour telling us that our leaders are not doing their jobs.

Henry

The audio for the Monday night "Evolution Schmevolution" Daily Show is available via BitTorrent here. He interviews the author of the Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney, who makes a great point--
Jon: "science seems rife for this kind of abuse...it's very difficult to know if people are lying to you, with science..."
Chris Mooney: "...it's quite easy to create confusion...scientific knowledge is by its nature tentative...exploit that uncertainty and that's one of the key strategies."

Did you miss the very beginning? I enjoyed his summary of creation myths and the multiple choice quiz for viewers about which giraffe evolution would have favored. Ed Helms was also entertaining in Dayton, though I think they can (and will) do better as they go :)

"The answer is C, but D would have been AWESOME"

They didn't do much with evolution on Monday night, did they. Just a short blurb at the end

Re "Did you miss the very beginning? "
Is that where it was? Yeah, I must've been out of the room or something. I'll rewind the tape tonight and see if it got intelligently recorded.

Henry

The first episode was a let down, in comparison to how funny and entertaining the Daily Show can normally be, however I find it hard to say I didn't enjoy it. D WOULD have been AWESOME.

In case anyone missed it, Dembski will be on The Daily Show on Wednesday.

Unfortunately, he was "sick," and therefore most likely won't offer the cogent and devastsating arguments that we all must assume he could have offered (if only he hadn't been, unfortunately, so sick). :)

The Kenosha Kid

Dagnabbit, I thought I corrected that "devastsating" typo. Clearly that would be a "devastsating" argument against my point.

I'm an arse.

The Kenosha Kid

In case anyone missed it, Dembski will be on The Daily Show on Wednesday. Unfortunately, he was "sick," and therefore most likely won't offer the cogent and devastsating arguments that we all must assume he could have offered (if only he hadn't been, unfortunately, so sick). :)

"Basically, Intelligent Design is the idea that life on earth is too complex to have evolved without a guiding hand. we're not saying it's god, just, eh, someone with the basic skill set to create an entire universe."

-Jon Stewart, tonight.

In case anyone missed it, Dembski will be on The Daily Show on Wednesday. Unfortunately, he was "sick," and therefore most likely won't offer the cogent and devastsating arguments that we all must assume he could have offered (if only he hadn't been, unfortunately, so sick). :)

Oh my god, Vonnegut just gave me a scare for a second. Pretty sweet line, though.

I guess his sickness explains why he's not currently at the international IEEE information theory conferences. The Isaac Newton of Information Theory, of course, would surely be there otherwise. I'm sure they invited him.

— steve

Hippopotomi, giraffes and, of course, the clap. How did the ID proponents not see it sooner! They owe a letter of thanks to Vonnegut. I am completely convinced now!

That's a bad case of emphysema Vonnegut has.

Inspired by Dembski's "word games" with Dawkins's quotes, and by Dembski's self indulging censorship, I slipped in a comment
here and here.

It pained me to write it. But just ignore the content and read only the capitalized letters.

If this is the guy heading efforts to find evidence of intelligent design, what does it say if he cannot detect my simple yet somewhat hidden intelligent design?

Vonnegut was very good. He is clearly aging, but dmeonstrated that he still has pretty quick wits, and very good ideas.

funny segment.

Comment #48132 Posted by RobertL on September 14, 2005 06:17 PM (e) (s) Vonnegut was very good. He is clearly aging, but dmeonstrated that he still has pretty quick wits, and very good ideas.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote: "Most fundies are loons, as well as being political/social/theological extremists. Most of their minions are uneducated semi-literates."

Problem is that most of the country is uneducated semi-literates and they don't like getting laughed at by the "cultural elite."

Polls are really depressing in this area: "Results of one Gallup poll report that 68 percent of the population believes both evolution and creationism 'should be taught in schools,' and another poll conducted in 1997 showed that over 45 percent of American adults believe humans did not evolve, but were already in their current modern form (Scott, par. 6, 17)."

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw29evolution31011403.htm

"...the Gallop Poll of 1991 "that 47 per cent of Americans professed belief in a recent special creation" (1993, p. 300)."

http://www.nabt.org/sub/evolution/panda1.asp

"Gallup's February 19-21 poll, 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," the statement that most closely describes biblical creationism. A slightly larger percentage, almost half, chose one of the two evolution-oriented statements: 37% selected "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" and 12% chose 'Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'

The public has not notably changed its opinion on this question since Gallup started asking it in 1982."

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm

I don't think you can laugh that many people into silence. Numbers that large represent political power.

What separates America from other developed cultures is that we have colleges for uneducated semi-literates. European culture will eventually catch up.

It appears that the show is running a day later in my area than for the people who're commenting on it on this thread. I wonder why. Maybe a lack of "intelligent design" somewhere? Huh.

Henry

Lewis Black has a pretty good take on the creationists.

per Lewis Black tonight;, I herby pledge $100 dollars to hire LB to debate Dr. Dino, ridicule could work against them for sure this time.

Holy crap, Black mentions Patriot University. Somebody did their homework.

batter up!!!

Who on earth is this Ellie Crystal woman on their panel? I've been debating evolution for years and this is the first time I've ever heard of her. She makes Dembski look positively rational.

This is the greatest thing in the history of things.

Hmmmmm, the "metaphysical creationist" was NOT the nuttiest one on the show.

:>

Good job, Isaac. Way to show everyone that ID isn't about religion.

(snicker) (giggle)

I can't wait for Dover . . . . . .

I think they chose the nutjob as a comment on teaching "alternative views".

Lewis Black, as usual, was awesome.

I'd post this at the "esteemed" Dembski blog, but we all know how much he loves hearing an opposing view (which is the mark of intellectual honesty...), so I'll put it here where it won't be removed.

Dembski:
"To ID proponents, the high-tech nano-engineered systems we find inside the cell constitute overwhelming evidence of actual design, especially when coupled with the overwhelming lack of evidence for the power of material mechanisms to produce such systems. Doubt this last claim? Prove me wrong. Provide a detailed, testable Darwinian pathway to the bacterial flagellum. I'm not sure we will be seeing each other, Dark Matter. You're out of here. ---WmAD."

So you don't even give him a chance to prove anything? The word "coward" comes to mind, for some strange reason.

Provide a detailed, testable Darwinian pathway to the bacterial flagellum.

Creationism/creative design is NOT a scientific theory, while Evolution IS a scientific theory! In science, we study SCIENCE, while in RELIGION/theology we study religious beliefs, religious scriptures, etc. Creative design has yet to produce ONE viable theory on ANYTHING, it has failed to produce, to the best of my knowledge, even ONE actual, testable, repeatable, quantifiable, verifiable SCEINTIFIC THEORY on ANY phenomena in the entire universe. Contrary to the Creationist claims, it is NOT science to simply say "God did it" every time you confront any phenomena in nature. You can develop your fancy religio-scientific viewpoint all you want, throw in some reverence to make your science a bit "religiousy", but when it comes right down to it, when you are doing science, SCIENCE and the scientific method rules, NOT GOD! And I never have understood why those whacky Intelligent Design types refuse to accept that if there is an "intelligent designer" behind the universe that Evolution cannot possibly be part of that design. Why don't you fools stop putting your hand up to Evolution and start looking into it for evidence that there is some sort of natural force that guides the evolutionary process, or some other sign that pure randomness and "luck" do not guide the shape of evolution? I'll tell you why, because Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory (largely because you Christians out there are too lazy to do your research) and you have no interest in actual science. "We're too puny and stupid and un-Godlike to ever possibly understand creation completely" is NOT a scientific attitude - it is the EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDE!!! So, get on the stick, you lazy bums! You have no acceptable champion for your view, at least none who is respected and credited in the scientific world. And NO, some scientist who believes in God is NOT proof that you have such a person, because that scientist doesn't not have a mathematical formula for inserting God into his scientific research. If this mythical "believer scientist" DID have such a theory, he or she would have published an earth shaking science book about his theory, one that provided testable, repeatable, verifiable, quantifiable evidence. So, where's YOUR book, True Believers? Where is YOUR champion? Where is YOUR Origin of the Species (and NO, NO, NO, The Bible is NOT this book because the stinkin' Bible AIN'T a science text!). You gotta at least show us your Stephen Jay Gould or your Carl Sagan or some other popularizer of Intelligent Design SCIENCE. You don't even have THAT guy, the irritating talk show guest "scientist", all you bums got is a bunch of crackpots and a few real scientists (most of 'em peripheral and unremarkable) with a semi-reverential attitude that really has no affect on their scientific work, only their general life philosophy. Hell, I am an atheist and even I have a semi-reverential attitude. I don't even try very hard to defend Evolution because it'd be a lie to pretend that I truly understand it well enough to argue for it. I understand enough of it, however, to realize that ample scientifically demonstratable evidence or proof of Evolution has been provided to give this theory more credence than ANY other for how life developed. Ah, ah, ah, whacky Creationists, don't provide YOUR evidence unless it qualifies as a genuine scientific theory! See, what you Believers are arguing is NOT science and anyone who says it IS is inspired wholly and completely by their non-rational religious beliefs and out of their immersion in religious mythology, not out of their objective, well documented scientific research. Evolution can ONLY be argued against in a scientific sphere, religionists cannot hope to simply infiltrate with their religious attitude intact and knock Evolution off its pedestal as the Leading Theory on the Development of Life. That's some retarded "apples and oranges" strategy that will never work and only reveals how truly stupid these Creationists are when it comes to science. You're all like some auto mechanic bursting into an operating room and yelling at the doctor with his hands in someone's chest, "No! No! No! You have to drain the oil first!" So, I guess what I'm saying is CREATIONISTS GO HOME! Go home and come back when you are a full fledged scientist who, without any preconceived notions going into it, has emerged from his rigorous SCIENTIFIC research convinced that he's uncovered proof of God's Hand at work in nature (and don't give me your cockamamie "watchmaker" argument. Science-style doubletalk does not qualify as genuine science. Get OUT of the classrooms and get into the lab and come back when you have something worthwhile to offer; until then, go back to reading about who begat who.

Dembski was there yesterday.... pity they did not include a member of the church of the spaguetti monster. Such discrimination in the public affairs should not pass unheeded...

I almost wouldn't be surprised if they did touch upon being touched upon by His Noodly Appendage. Unfortunately, I have a hard time seeing where they'll fit it in.

Perhaps it was some pasta that gave Isaac his tummy bug. His Noodlyness works in mysterious ways, after all.

I can't wait for Dover ... ...

Someone from China said,

Man, how come nobody said how thin the Pandas and People book was? That thing looks more like a coffee table book than a textbook...

Someone in China said recently, In China we are not allowed to criticize the government but we are allowed to discuss Darwinism as a theory. In the United States, you are allowed to criticize the government but are not allowed to question the Church of Darwin.

Wed night I noticed Demski brought up LUCA for a brief moment. Wonder what blogs he has been reading lately? Try to guess the nonsense he will come up with next?

I hereby second mww's idea of having Lewis Black debate Hovind. In fact I recommend ONLY having stand up comedians debate "professional creationists". I'm serious here. Working comedians are experts at ridicule and come backs. Also using comedians wouldn't even give the ILLUSION that this is a scientific debate. I mean, imagine Lewis Black or George Carlin or someone equally smart and acerbic ripping into creationists... Not only that, but the deabtes would probably draw a larger and broader audience.

"In fact I recommend ONLY having stand up comedians debate 'professional creationists".

I can just picture Bill Hicks at the Kansas Kangaroo Court. Ah, RIP Bill.

A show on comedy central about evolution was bound to poke fun at everybody and everyone should expect to get slammed. As I suggested, the evolutionist with a vise hat. To slam the FSM, Dembski could have appeared with a pasta bowl and taken a bite, to expect to discuss your book was unrealistic. The show should be taken for what it is, comedy, not a scientific airing of views. Of course ID/creationists are going to get more jokes, their easier. Evolutionary theory is realistic, predictive, explanatory, and works. In spite of that, the show has gotten good mileage out Darwin. I especially liked the Bronx zoo guy when asked about penis size then about gorillas and luggage. Instead of "crickets chirping" (Lenny Flack), an appropriate response to the question about why gorillas hate luggage would have been "because it has his larger penis inside". 20/20 hindsight is wonderful.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

But are you prepared for Waterloo In Dover?

— Wesley R. Elsberry

Someone in China said recently, In China we are not allowed to criticize the government but we are allowed to discuss Darwinism as a theory. In the United States, you are allowed to criticize the government but are not allowed to question the Church of Darwin.

Someone in China said recently, In China we are not allowed to criticize the government but we are allowed to discuss Darwinism as a theory. In the United States, you are allowed to criticize the government but are not allowed to question the Church of Darwin.

— Jenny Rae

Finally somebody is seeing the value of satire with creationists. Nobody has been successful debating them, even going back to the 80's when "scientific creationism" was in vogue. Same arguments: Flood geology, young earth, Miller-Urey experiment, etc.

Creationists don't operate on the same plane as scientists. Creationist credibility (I can't believe I even wrote those two words!) is not based on the same principles as scientific rigor. That's why flood geology, for example, keeps on going like the Everready Bunny. It doesn't matter that it's proved false over and over, because it resides on a different plane and operates by a different set of rules.

Maybe the magic crystal lady who was on the Daily Show last night could explain it better. "ID" is like a ball of force energy on a 12 x 12 grid...shaped like a mousetrap...perched on the top of Mt. Rushmore...in a tornado.

Maybe the magic crystal lady who was on the Daily Show last night could explain it better. "ID" is like a ball of force energy on a 12 x 12 grid...shaped like a mousetrap...perched on the top of Mt. Rushmore...in a tornado.

That quote, by the way, originated with Jonathan Wells and is entirely unsourced. In other words, no one knows who this Chinese scholar is, we just have to take Wells' word for it. Which I personally don't.

Chinese Paleontologist Challenges Darwin's Theory DR. CHEN A highlight of 1999 was the visit to Tampa by Dr. Jun-Yuan Chen, China's preeminent paleontologist. He achieved world renown in 1988 as his team unearthed a gold-mine of rare Cambrian fossils in Southern China. The richness of these fossil beds is so staggering, it led to cover stories in National Geographic and Time Magazine. It was exciting to host Dr. and Mrs. Chen! I took Dr. Chen to local universities, where he lectured on (and displayed) his priceless fossils. On one point, Dr. Chen was blunt: "Darwinism cannot explain this huge explosion of diversity." In a sociology class, while discussing scientific "paradigm shifts," Dr. Chen said that the Darwinian paradigm is in trouble, and that Darwinists don't recognize it "because their thinking is in a box."

Someone in Atlanta said recently, In Atlanta we are not allowed to criticize the department of trasportation but we are allowed to discuss traffic as a theory. In Fantasyland, you are allowed to criticize the department of trasportation but are not allowed to question the Church of Drive Time Radio.

if that didn't make sense, that's cuz i made it up. dude, i can make up whatever i want, can't i? and then YOU have to prove it wrong! sleep deprivation. the "metaphysical therapist" was funny as hell just sitting next to demski (who calls himself "WmAD" so that he won't be called "Wad"). she didn't have to say a word. and i think jon stewart doesn't jump on people too hard cuz he knows his audience is already thinking what he's not saying.

The Bayesian Bouffant writes: I am still waiting for someone to come up with equivalent video of the flagellum designer in action.

Jenny Rae -

In case you haven't noticed, the Gestapo will not come and take you away if you criticize evolution. Otherwise Dembski would have been tossed in the slammer a long time ago. (Ah, one can only dream....) Just kidding. A little.

But if your criticicism arises from ignorance or religious zealotry, then, yeah, you're going to get slammed.

Comment #48252 Posted by Jenny Rae on September 15, 2005 11:56 AM (e) (s) Someone in China said recently, In China we are not allowed to criticize the government but we are allowed to discuss Darwinism as a theory. In the United States, you are allowed to criticize the government but are not allowed to question the Church of Darwin.

But are you prepared for Waterloo In Dover?

There's to many good one liners from Dembski's writings to let slip by, space aliens are the best.

Someone in China said recently, In China we are not allowed to criticize the government but we are allowed to discuss Darwinism as a theory. In the United States, you are allowed to criticize the government but are not allowed to question the Church of Darwin.

— Jenny Rae

Jenny Rae offers: Someone in China said recently, In China we are not allowed to criticize the government but we are allowed to discuss Darwinism as a theory. In the United States, you are allowed to criticize the government but are not allowed to question the Church of Darwin.

That "someone in China" is an uninformed idiot. In the U.S., YECs and IDists flourish in their press, on their blogs, in many churches and in their public speeches; none are inhibited in the least from proffering their views. Except in the very narrow venue of the science classroom in govt institutions, and that for the simple reason that what they proffer is religion and not science.

To compare the status of creationists/Idists in the West -- who enjoy complete freedom of expression to take issue with evolution -- to persons tortured and/or imprisoned and/or shot in communist totalitarian states for expressing forbidden political opinions, is beyond obscene. Show me a Dembski sitting in a U.S. gulag for peddling his nonsense, and then you can make such statements without offending notions of common decency.

Someone in China said recently, In China we are not allowed to criticize the government but we are allowed to discuss Darwinism as a theory. In the United States, you are allowed to criticize the government but are not allowed to question the Church of Darwin.

Thaxton: "I have difficulty with common ancestry", and when asked if he accepted the evolution of humans fro prehominids, he answered, "Personally I don't, no" Wells: "I find it extremely unlikely based on the evidence that the animal phyla are related through common ancestry", and on human evolution, "I think it's extremely unlikely based on the evidence". Simat: On universal common ancestry, "From the data that I've been following it's probably not true". He wasn't asked about human evolution. Peltzer: Asked if he accepts common ancestry, "No", and human evolution, "No". Carlson: Asked if he accepts common ancestry, "No", and human evolution, "I don't accept that as a fact". Sanford: Asked if he accepts common ancestry, "No", and human evolution, "No". DiSilvestro: Common ancestry, "I'm unconvinced of that idea", and human evolution, "I'm unconvinced of that idea also". Leonard: Common ancestry, "No", and human evolution, "No". Ely: Common ancestry, "No", and human evolution, "No". DeHart: Common ancestry, "Not if you interpret common descent, and realize that I'm taking liberty here, not if you interpret common descent as being that that is natural selection acting on random mutations I do not", and human evolution, "No". Millam: Common ancestry, "No", human evolution, "No". Bryson: Common ancestry, "No", human evolution, "No". Meyer: Common ancestry, "I am skeptical about universal common descent", and human evolution, "I'm skeptical of it because I think the evidence for the proposition is weak". Menuge: Common ancestry, "Not as defined by neo-Darwinism, no", and human evolution, "I doubt it". Akyol: Common ancestry, "I don't believe in universal common descent because I don't see any scientific evidence for it", and human evolution, "I'm skeptical about it because I don't see any compelling evidence that there's a lineage between prehominids and humans".

My favorite part was when Stewart asked about the scrotum. My second favorite was "What came first, the religious conversion something something something..." And Dembski says "Conversion, something, something, something..."

Sorry if my post contains a lot of stuff already mentioned at the PT. I posted it elsewhere and copied it to here.

Dembski has a postmortem photo from the daily show. The body language is very telling, he and Edward Larson while smiling both have their hands rolled up in fists while Jon Stewart looks like the cat that just ate the canary. Ellie Crystal looks like she's been channeling to much.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Nice commemorative photo, which reminds me, he really should've worn a jacket.

Jason, you're absolutely right. Dembski really went with a soft touch, making ID sound a lot less objectionable for an uninformed audience to consider.

Wasn't his response to the seemingly poor design of the scrotum that design wasn't responsible for everything?

Ellie Crystal has her own website, where she talks about being on the Daily Show. It's, uhhh, 'out there' to say the least.

Re Wesley's Dover Waterloo cafepress stuff, I wonder how long it'll be, before I see one of those white oval stickers saying "FSM" in black sans-serif? In Nerdville USA, aka the Triangle area, where people actually drive around with bumper stickers promoting Linux, Strongbad, etc, I bet it won't be too long.

Re Wesley's Dover Waterloo cafepress stuff, I wonder how long it'll be, before I see one of those white oval stickers saying "FSM" in black sans-serif? In Nerdville USA, aka the Triangle area, where people actually drive around with bumper stickers promoting Linux, Strongbad, etc, I bet it won't be too long.

— steve

Jason wrote: "William Dembski is either completely insane or he's a bald-faced liar."

Wasn't he speaking for himself and not the ID community?

Re "Thaxton: "I have difficulty with common ancestry", and when asked if he accepted the evolution of humans fro prehominids, he answered, "Personally I don't, no""

Somebody should have asked if he thought he was descended from people that lived 1000 years ago.

When he says "yes" or "of course", ask for evidence.

Henry

Tonight's Daily Show would have been improved by dropping the pointless and rambling interview with Gweneth Paltrow.

Comment #48369 Posted by The Kenosha Kid on September 15, 2005 09:00 PM (e) (s) steve wrote: Re Wesley's Dover Waterloo cafepress stuff, I wonder how long it'll be, before I see one of those white oval stickers saying "FSM" in black sans-serif? In Nerdville USA, aka the Triangle area, where people actually drive around with bumper stickers promoting Linux, Strongbad, etc, I bet it won't be too long.

A Chinese scientist visitng the US made the interesting comment: In China, you can can criticise Darwin but not the government. In the US you can criticise the government but not Darwin. Wonder who are the Inquisition and who are the Galileos today.
Donate to the Red Cross? Sorry, can't...my selfish genes took care of that...

A Chinese scientist visitng the US made the interesting comment: In China, you can can criticise Darwin but not the government. In the US you can criticise the government but not Darwin.

— Eugene Tan

We watch the Daily Show on a regular basis. The evolution series was hilarious.

Of course, that mysterious, apocryphal "visiting Chinese scientist" apparently was unaware that the Bolsheviks were as rabidly anti-Darwin as the creationists are. He was criticizing governmental oppression of thought -- and as we have seen, it is evolution that is oppressed by government every time. More than 100 times since 1925 creationists/IDists have asked state legislatures to ban, water down, or stunt science in the classroom, specifically the teaching of evolution.

In contrast, not once has science asked that creationism be banned by fiat.

Each and every legal case was prompted by creationists' illegal insertion into law, or illegal attempts to insert into classrooms, unscientific screeds against Darwin.

Love that flag, but be sure you're right before charging on (no apologies necessary to Davy Crockett).

We, the misnamed "Darwin-only crowd", want students to ctiticize Darwin all they want, and criticize the critics, in the proper forum for best education of course.

An oldy but goody:
Intelligent Grappling

New Group Hopes To Break Monopoly On Gravity Theory

A Georgia group calling itself Teachers for Equal Time has asked that stickers be placed in all new physics textbooks which note that mutual attraction and relativity are not the only theories available to explain gravity and should not be taken as fact.

I'll have to set my sky plus pvr to record the compilation tomorrow night.The show sounds good !

Donate to the Red Cross? Sorry, can't...my selfish genes took care of that...

— Eugene Tan

A Chinese scientist visitng the US made the interesting comment: In China, you can can criticise Darwin but not the government. In the US you can criticise the government but not Darwin.

Of course, that mysterious, apocryphal "visiting Chinese scientist" apparently was unaware that the Bolsheviks were as rabidly anti-Darwin as the creationists are. He was criticizing governmental oppression of thought --- and as we have seen, it is evolution that is oppressed by government every time.

Controversy? What controversy?

I've just spent about a week and a half reading and posting at Telic Thoughts on the topic of "Evidence From Plausibility" , and I'm trying to figure out if there's even a legitimate controversy between neodarwinian evolution (NDE) and ID in the first place.

After spending several thousand words pointing out that 1) ID does not propose any mechanism whatsoever for how a postulated design gets implemented in living organisms, and at least one ID proponent (Dembski) claims it doesn't need to propose one; 2) ID does not deny that evolution occurs, i.e., it does not dispute the evidence from the fossil record; 3) ID does not deny common descent with modification, nor the reality of nested hierarchies of relationships among taxa (although the lack of either or both would not falsify ID); 4) it does not deny that mutations happen, nor does it seem to deny that natural selection can happen either, I'm wondering why ID even bothers to exist.

Maybe the only controversy between NDE and ID is that ID denies that mutations can be random. It insists that since there's a designer (there must be a designer, because if something looks designed, it was designed, QED, cf Dembski and Behe), beneficial mutations can't be random. However, it doesn't even deny that harmful mutations can be random. And after all, if you're looking at it from a theistic point of view (and when it comes to ID, who doesn't?), you don't want to saddle your designer with responsibility for mutations that kill the host, do you?

It appears that ID disputes that any random mutation can actually be beneficial. But what about mutations (i.e., the one that causes sickle-cell anemia) that are beneficial in some circumstances but not in others? Are we to assume that a designer with the ability to create (or at least get started) life on earth can't come up with a mutation that doesn't harm the host half the time?

So, if you take ID adherents at face value (and discount young-earth creationists and their ilk), the only thing they don't accept about NDE is "random" mutations. If you're willing to admit the possibility that the chain of mutations that resulted in, e.g., the mammalian clotting sequence, was planned out from the get-go, then I don't think you're going to get into an argument with the likes of Dembski or Behe (although Wells would probably argue with you, since he seems to dispute common descent with modification). But can one tell, just by looking, if a specific mutation is intentional, rather than accidental? Evidently the ID position is, if the mutation is beneficial, a designer did it; otherwise, it's entropy.

So, if you take ID adherents at face value

— Eric Murphy

Evidently the ID position is, if the mutation is beneficial, a designer did it; otherwise, it's entropy.

— Eric Murphy

there must be a designer, because if something looks designed, it was designed, QED, cf Dembski and Behe

And it only happens within a "kind."

— EB

"Is that a Behe "kind," of which there is only one on earth that includes all its life, a Nelson "kind," which is approximately equivalent to "family," or a Dembski "kind," which is whatever you want it to be?

You're too kind.