Pharyngula::Daily Show — Evolution Schmevolution 3

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Daily Show — Evolution Schmevolution 3

PZ Myers • 37 Comments (last page)

OK, Ed Helms was good—but hauling out the breasts and using Hooters as an example of Darwinian success is an easy laugh. I was proud to see one of my state's virtues mentioned: "Minnesota's nipple-hardening cold". You might think that would help improve our January tourism trade, but layers and wool do tend to diminish the effect.

Lewis Black riffed on Of Pandas and People and D is for Dinosaur and Ken Ham and "Dr." Kent Hovind (he exposed his degree from Patriot Bible University!), pointing out how absurd their ideas were. The short clips of Hovind and Ham testifying about religion were pretty damning. The conclusion was good, too: "When you try too hard to apply science to religion, both look ridiculous."

The Panel: Edward Larson, William Dembski, and Ellie Crystal ("Metaphysical Theorist" and total nutball). Crystal was a joke, and blew herself up with the nonsense she was spouting. Larson was good, and got in the last word: he's fed up up with the religious and political motives of the people trying to tell science teachers what to teach. Dembski was ineffectual and mentioned his usual baloney: Mt. Rushmore, and Isaac Newton's theology. They could have given him more rope to hang himself with, but they did get him to admit that his religious conversion came before any evidence.

I'd say it was another so-so show. There were a few good lines, the panel wasn't very satisfying, and there wasn't any solid blow. The most effective bits were the clips of Ham and Hovind, which showed up their lunacy well.

I'm not sure that I'll be able to catch the last episode. We're flying to NY tomorrow evening, and will just be getting into town an hour before it's shown. We may just have to catch it online.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2930/ZHh1OEwz/

Comments:

#40116: — 09/14 at 09:44 PM
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I noticed that Dembski was seated next to Crystal. The mental association being ID = Nutball.

#40118: — 09/14 at 09:53 PM
I thought it was hilarious how Jon cut off Crystal and her nutty creation story and asks Dumbski, "Now, why shouldn't that be taught in schools?". The scrotum joke was funny too, and Dembski did not have an answer for it!

Cheers!

#40120: coturnix — 09/14 at 09:55 PM
I think it was the best of the three so far. The Minnesota reference did not pass unnoticed

Why are they harping on the meaningless number of 98.5% similarity with chimps?

The stuff not related to evolution was also good, including the movie sequence following the clip of Bush taking, sorta and with multiple caveats, responsibility.

#40121: — 09/14 at 09:56 PM
Besides Lewis Black's great bit, I thought the best part was John asking Dembski why an intelligent designer would design the scrotum and testies, outside the body, where they are fully exposed...Dembski was stunned.

Else, I agree, these have been so-so.

#40122: Bob Davis — 09/14 at 10:01 PM
Lewis Black was the best part of the show. I thought the panel discussion was confusing and useless. Larson agreed that religion could be taught in science. And the Crystal woman made the whole thing seem lame; not make ID seem lame, but the panel.

#40123: — 09/14 at 10:02 PM
My 11-yr-old burst out laughing at the shots of "D is for Dinosaur."

I know it's late, but I let him watch TDS as a counter to alla that other stuff out there. "This Week in God" is his favorite segment. Y'all can call CPS right now; I won't run.

He still thinks we're the only atheists in Lubbock, though. Now that my sister and bro-in-law have moved to Iowa, he may be right.

#40124: Heliologue — 09/14 at 10:06 PM
I was very disappointed in the panel. I know what TDS was trying to do, but it didn't come off so well.

Let's look at the characters: Crystal, an obvious pseudoscientific nutjob. None of the viewers, religious or not, is going to take her seriously when she talks about electromagnetic grids and "psychogeometry." Dembski, poster boy for the modern ID movement, but who got in the most talking time. Finally Larson, a history teacher in favor of evolution, but who softpedals a bit on ID.

The intention, I think, was to pair Crystal and Dembski together, thinking that the former's "Creation is a ball of energy that formed 12x12 grids" would expose the fallacy of the latter's "Creation is an omniscient deity that formed people with scrotums." However, they underestimated how insidious the ID people are. They aren't clear-as-day Young Earthers. Instead, the ploy backfired, and Dembski ended up more clearly aligned with Larson, not only because they both advocated evolution in some form or another, but because at the end, Larson promoted the old "teach the controversy" line (though he didn't use that phrase).

The biggest failing of the week so far is that it has railed against the blatant creationists, but blatant creationists aren't the biggest threat that science and education face. It's precisely the sort of quackery that seems plausible, and that sneaks its way past less discerning people, that's truly dangerous.

#40125: ekzept — 09/14 at 10:40 PM
whatever you may think of the Times' Thomas Friedman, he wrote today in part:

The discipline that the cold war imposed on America, by contrast, seems to have faded. Last year, we cut the National Science Foundation budget, while indulging absurd creationist theories in our schools and passing pork-laden energy and transportation bills in the middle of an energy crisis.

We let the families of the victims of 9/11 redesign our intelligence organizations, and our president and Congress held a midnight session about the health care of one woman, Terri Schiavo, while ignoring the health crisis of 40 million uninsured. Our economy seems to be fueled lately by either suing each other or selling each other houses. Our government launched a war in Iraq without any real plan for the morning after, and it cut taxes in the middle of that war, ensuring that future generations would get the bill.

is the only way to get the message across about this to people is include it as part of skits on Comedy Central? if so, that is in itself a comment.

yeah, i know it's all for fun, but ... .

#40127: Zeno — 09/14 at 11:09 PM
I think we're a bit jaded. After all, we talk among ourselves quite a lot and we know the ins and outs of the bogus "teach the controversy" campaign. Try to step back and appreciate what The Daily Show is accomplishing. In a few short television segments, it's presenting several of the essential facts about the real agenda behind "intelligent design" and why it really isn't science at all. That's a public service on a significant scale and reaches an audience that isn't logging on to Pharyngula or The Panda's Thumb on a weekly (let alone daily) basis. This is more than a so-so accomplishment and we should enjoy it.

In the meantime, here in blogland, we need to keep passing the ammunition and keeping the powder dry. Creationists of all stripes, ID and otherwise, are fighting much too successfully to undermine the credibility of evolution in the public mind. They see it as a zero-sum game in which any loss on our side is a win for their side. Their strategy conforms to what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle put into the mouth of Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four: "[W]hen you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Since they have no positive program of their own, they rest their hopes on a negative strategy of trying to make evolution look impossible. Then they win by default.

#40130: — 09/14 at 11:38 PM
I think the best part was Lewis Black's entire bit, but the clips of Ham and Hovind were quite damning. I had only heard of their styles of delivery, but seeing them actually performing was quite amazing. I wasn't watching preachers or scientists talking--I was watching hucksters and magicians. Hovind's long riff about the watch and Ham's diatribe that ended with "who knows everything? God!" were both delivered so rapidly as to be almost incomprehensible--as is naturally the intent.

I agree with Heliologue about having Crystal on the panel and being so out-there. The result was that it did end up looking like Dembski and Larson were on the side of science (or at least sanity!) but simply disagreed on design/evolution. This is a great shame, too, because she brought absolutely nothing to the discussion. The issue is evolution vs. ID, why do we need to have a "metaphysical theorist" on the panel?

#40134: — 09/15 at 12:40 AM
There's just not enough time in a thirty-minute show to get a decent discussion going, not without dropping the rest. TDS's intent was good but they just don't have the format for it.

The issue is evolution vs. ID, why do we need to have a "metaphysical theorist" on the panel?

Did you hear the audience chuckling as she introduced her position? That's why.

#40135: — 09/15 at 12:55 AM
How good the shows are is a little beside the point. The Daily Show is preaching to the choir; look at the lines that got applause, or the audience responding "Halliburton" at the end of the roll call of no-bid contractors for New Orleans.

The spectrum presented by the panel's line-up was clear: science, pseudo-science, mysticism. When Larson said he thought that a variety of views should be taught, it ought to be recalled that he's a historian, not a biologist.

Lewis Black's jibe about the razor-fanged dinosaurs' obvious appetite for vegetables was great

#40149: Alon Levy — 09/15 at 03:48 AM
Oh yeah, idolization of Singapore... I think I've just found an issue Thomas Friedman says things he has no clue about other than the war on Iraq (though he is of course correct that it's being managed incompetently). The government here is more pragmatist than this of the United States, but it's easy to exaggerate its pragmatism, and in fact Singapore's admirers invariably do. The spin on Singapore's paying its Prime Minister 1.1 million US dollars per year is downright repugnant.

#40152: — 09/15 at 04:26 AM
PZ, A "so-so show"! I know there's no accounting for taste, but take the flat of your hand and whack it against your temple to reset things. Really.

This was a hilarious, honest, and effective series. And a risky one -- a whole week of commercial comedy devoted to a science subject known for its abstractness and controversy. On top of all this, they experimented with several new changes to the format of their wildly popular show. That really takes balls.

It succeeded spectacularly. Jon Stewart, Ed Helms, Lewis Black, and of course the show's writers all did the country a tremendous service this week, while at the same time producing a bunch of really funny shows.

Think about what just happened. This is commercial television. No one has ever attempted to treat a scientific subject comedically like this before, to say nothing of pulling it off so well. I'm in awe.

#40157: — 09/15 at 05:14 AM
"The Simpsons" could be an interesting venue for evolution...

#40159: — 09/15 at 06:01 AM
Has there been another instance, since Mencken, of professional ridiculers repeatedly making fun of creationists for a mass audience?

#40160: — 09/15 at 06:21 AM
The interesting thing (law-wise) is that it is the IDiots very insistence that their rubbish isn't religion which makes it more permissible to ridicule them. It doesn't matter that they are lying about that because they can't then use religious discrimination/intolerance as a defence without blowing their flimsy cover. The UK has new laws which are so misguidedly written as to make it difficult for comedians to ridicule religion - even though religion really deserves ridicule in many cases and doesn't deserve any of the special protection/exemptions it has had for far too long.

#40162: — 09/15 at 06:45 AM
Patrick said:

"The Simpsons" could be an interesting venue for evolution...

As a matter of fact, The Simpsons has been a proponent of evolution (and a very harsh critic of religion too...). Did you ever see the episode featuring Stephen J. Gould? The episode is called "Lisa The Skeptic" and deals with pseudoscience.

#40164: notheory — 09/15 at 07:02 AM
C'mon now people. This is the Daily Show we're talking about, on Comedy Central, not the Discovery or History Channel. Should anybody really expect significant exposition on their personal view point? The whole point of the show is the make fun of stuff.

And as far as that's the case, the Daily Show is a perfect venue. The evolution "debate" is disingenuous, and needs to be made a mockery of. And suffice it to say, i think they did a good job of that.

Okay, now to my complaints about the show ;) The one thing that made me cringe was Lewis Black's otherwise hysterical segment associating Origin of the Species w/ "Survival of the Fittest".

In conclusion, David Horowitz is an intellectual pygmy.

#40166: notheory — 09/15 at 07:03 AM
I worded that really poorly. Nobody should expect significant exposition on anything, regardless of their personal viewpoint, or scientific consensus. The daily show isn't about that.

In conclusion, David Horowitz is an intellectual pygmy.

#40167: Hank Fox — 09/15 at 07:04 AM
I'm trying to look at this from the point of view of the average guy on the street in the US, with little or no hard knowledge of the "controversy," and it's coming out mildly funny, but not very informative one way or the other. Nothing that would make "me" form or reform any hard opinions.

I think that freaky laughing woman on the panel was a distracting waste of airtime, and I wish Stewart had really buttonholed Dembski with at least one hard-hitting question.

Right now, I'm feeling that the shows overall would get about a "C" grade. Unless they do something REALLY punchy on the last day, I think I'm going to end up being disappointed. This is not the blockbuster hit I was hoping it would be.

(BTW, I'm expecting a high-volume SHRIEK from the neo-cons today about the court decision against the Pledge of Allegiance. Expect to hear the phrase "activist judges" about a thousand times.)

#40168: Les Lane — 09/15 at 07:33 AM
I suspect that Southern Baptists in general aren't too good on scrotums.

#40171: — 09/15 at 07:51 AM
Scientists don't want to validate IDers by having one on one debates; "12x12 Moonbat's" idiocy helped in that regard, even if she was distracting. I wish they could have gotten a biologist instead of an historian, though.
I agree with STSmith that this is the best we can expect from a comedy show. Let's pray that Jon wraps the series with a good recapitulation of the facts, FSM willing.

#40172: bill — 09/15 at 07:59 AM
I think that the Daily Show did a great job of lumping Dembski, Crystal Lady, Ham and Hovind into the same jar of nuts. Dembski looked so uptight I could just imagine him wearing a Pilgrim outfit.

Satire is my tool of choice in the evolution/creationism debate. It appears to me that Jon Stewart has done a good job of presenting science on one hand and comic book fantasy on the other.

More Ken Ham, please!

#40173: Johnny Vector — 09/15 at 08:01 AM
The fact is, the more I think about it, the more I like it. I do think it's good.

Here's why: Dembski came right out and said (something to the effect of) "Of course evolution happens. We're just saying some things can't be explained by it." He couldn't have been clearer if he'd walked in wearing a big placard reading There is no God but the God of the Gaps.

If any fundies were watching (due to, y'know, a horrible programming error in their TiVo or something), I don't think they're with him any more. And if I knew nothing about the argument I think I'd feel like "What's the big deal? Shut up already."

Plus, they said "scrotum".

Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >

Next entry: A different history channel

Previous entry: Timothy Birdnow

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Daily Show — Evolution Schmevolution 3

Info