Pharyngula::O'Reilly on ID. Get your barf bags ready!

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

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

O'Reilly on ID. Get your barf bags ready!

PZ Myers • 47 Comments (last page)

I never, ever watch Fox News. Ask my family—they know I tend to growl and storm out of the room if I find the TV tuned to that garbage. And I especially never, ever watch that schmuck, Bill O'Reilly, who makes me start howling and scanning the room for a ball-peen hammer. Well, tonight Jason Rosenhouse tuned into a spectacle so horrifying that it would have made my head explode: Bill O'Reilly expounding on Intelligent Design creationism. Fortunately, I was spared, and have only seen this nightmare through the filter of Jason's account and an online transcript. And even at that it was more ghastly than I could have imagined.

Here's a tiny taste. Imagine Bill O'Reilly lecturing a professor of biology in what science is.

GRANT: Science is always incomplete in all areas.

O’REILLY: Well, I don’t agree with that. Science is not always incomplete and I’ll give you an example. There are twenty-four hours in a day. Alright. That’s science. And there are four seasons. That’s science. So you can state things with certainty in biology or any other science you want.

Don't think about what he just said too hard—you'll poison your own synapses. To keep it simple, that is not science. Science is not a collection of facts that can be memorized and recited; science is a process. It's a way of thinking, testing, analyzing, and extrapolating about the natural world, it's a tool for building conceptual models of how the world works.

Here, a longer taste. Close this window if you are already gagging! O'Reilly tries now to tell us what science is not.

O’REILLY: Alright. See. I think this is a narrow-minded view, with all due respect, that you are holding. But I must point out to our viewers that most academics agree with the professor. Alright. It’s pinheads like me that cause trouble. Now. Cloning of human beings. It’s never been done that we know of. Would you agree with that?

GRANT: To the best of my knowledge, it has not yet been done. That’s correct.

O’REILLY (overtalks the last 8 words): OK. Now. Do you not talk about cloning of human beings in biology class? Do you not talk about the possibility that may come about in the future?

GRANT: In certain special classes and the bioethics classes, we definitely do talk about that....

O’REILLY (overtalks last 3 words): Yeah. It’s not science, sir!!

GRANT: ...whether it could or should be done. It’s very much science.

O’REILLY: Yeah. It’s not science, is it?

GRANT: There’s an enormous amount of science in it.

O’REILLY: It’s not!

GRANT: Absolutely.

O’REILLY: Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! It’s not science. It hasn’t been done.

GRANT: Yes, it is.

O’REILLY: So, by your theory in the creationism deal, you shouldn’t talk about that at all, because it hasn’t been done, it hasn’t been proven, nothing’s happened there!

I have never, in my entire 12 year career as a college instructor, ever had a student as stupid, as dense, as arrogant, as oblivious, as Bill O'Reilly. I have never had a conversation with a lay person about science that was as grossly wrong as this eructation of ignorance out of the mouth of Bill O'Reilly. And this man is a highly paid commentator on a nationally broadcast and popular program?

I am really impressed with Dr Michael Grant, though. He actually managed to sit through that and make civil and competent responses. I would have been shocked into silence, or would have simply left the room as soon as he said, "there are four seasons. That’s science."

And that Jason Rosenhouse certainly must have a strong stomach, too.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/1826/9bvKKVTT/

Comments:

#13814: — 01/19 at 11:04 PM
"there are four seasons. That’s science."

That is awesome.

#13816: — 01/19 at 11:20 PM
We long ago declared our house a Fox News Free Zone. Thanks for the reminder why .... I think.

#13819: mattH — 01/20 at 12:17 AM
Just one more example of why I don't have cable TV in the house. Too many channels with nothing on.

#13820: — 01/20 at 12:36 AM
More and more, I think your compliment to Dr. Grant is the problem. Why shouldn't he say "Mr. O'Reilly, you don't know what you are talking about" or "You are a total ass" or something like that. When you sit there and take it, what does the viewer see? He sees the plain-spoken tough guy (yeah, yeah, I know) telling that effete, liberal know it all what's what. I for one am tired of it, and I think we shouldn't take it anymore (cue "Network" quote).

#13822: — 01/20 at 12:57 AM

We long ago declared our house a Fox News Free Zone.

So, what channel do you watch if you're interested in how well the War in Iraq is going?

(sorry. the pressures of my newly-assigned niche are really starting to get to me. Thanks, Richard.)

Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

-Jerry Garcia

#13823: DarkSyde — 01/20 at 01:05 AM
Friends and associates of PZ Meyrs are invited to attend an informal discussion and lend their ideas regarding his upcoming intervention ...

#13824: Jan Theodore Galkowski — 01/20 at 01:49 AM
We have cable, but we almost never watch any kind of TV news. Okay, on September 11th and following days we watched. And we watched the beginnings of the war in Iraq. CNN. But day to day? No. Why?

The closest thing to news on TV we see is Charlie Rose. All our news is by Internet. We don't get newspapers. We used to subscribe to the Sunday New York Times. No longer. We don't even subscribe to the local newspaper.

Fox? What's that?

Cable is for entertainment, like Disney Channel -- which has some things all of us like -- and A&E and especially Sci-Fi Channel, although I must say their quality has recently tanked. There's also ESPN although we'd watch more if they had more soccer, dammit.

And there's Comedy Central.

That's about it.

My favorite news is some combination of Financial Times and BBC News on the Web, and NPR on FM radio.

Were you expecting intelligent, pithy analysis from O'Reilly ???

#13827: Chris — 01/20 at 02:10 AM
The horror. The horror.

#13829: ajmilne — 01/20 at 02:43 AM
I've only ever seen bits of the show. And every single time, I had to get all my bullshit detectors rebuilt... O'Reilly didn't just redline 'em, he made the needles spin so fast the damn things done took off.

And yeah, the drooling stupidity displayed above is fine, vintage bombast, judged against what I've seen. But I still say the most stunningly repulsive O'Reilly segment, for my money, was the Jeremy Glick bit.

Yep. Now that these brutal psychos have killed this kid's father, let's use the incident in which he died for blatantly manipulative agitprop... And then, when the kid has the nerve to call us on it, let's bellow the party line at him like some kinda rabid walrus, invoke 'respect for his father' in tones so stunningly, sanctimoniously phony they'd make an 80s televangelist cringe, and cut his mic...

I wish I believed in a hell, 'cos that's where a guy with that kinda class belongs... or, I suppose, on a local AM radio show, in the 3am slot, with an audience of exactly two listeners, both of whom still think it's some kind of bizarre comedy, and are just waiting for the punch line. Either's good, I guess.

#13830: Bartholomew — 01/20 at 02:45 AM
This guy used to teach high school?

#13831: — 01/20 at 02:49 AM
Paul is right.

C'mon PZ. What happened to the Dawn of the New Age announced in the previous post? Has the sun set already?

You need to be prepared to talk about why invoking mysterious alien beings to explain phenomena is not science. That it's useless. And that the people who are peddling it are scientists in the same way that Bill O'Reilly is journalist.

And you make sure that O'Reilly hears you. And that he responds to YOUR questions. And not the other way around. And you laugh right in his face and let him know that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

#13835: — 01/20 at 03:41 AM
More unpleasant Christian behaviour:

http://in.news.yahoo.com/050116/139/2j1rp.html

Tsunami survivors are told they have to convert to Christianity before they can receive aid.

#13837: — 01/20 at 06:24 AM
Paul Orwin wrote...

More and more, I think your compliment to Dr. Grant is the problem. Why shouldn’t he say “Mr. O’Reilly, you don’t know what you are talking about” or “You are a total ass” or something like that.

Although I agree with the overall idea, I just don't know if it's really feasible. BO'R had pretty clearly demonstrated that he needed more than just a verbal slap-down. Dr. Grant would have had to try and get a semester or two worth of Philosophy of Science into a 5 minute appearance. And it's not like BO'R would have been listening anyway. All that it would have done would be to fluster the professor and confuse the viewers. This is not a fight that'll be won between commercial breaks.

Rrawr!

#13838: — 01/20 at 06:45 AM
The real roblem is that the person who would explain to Mr. O'Reilly what an idiot he is would never be invited on the show. Guests are screened. Believe me, there is a long list of individuals from all walks of life who would love to get the opportunity to address O'Reilly's idiocy to his face. Never going to happen.

#13842: — 01/20 at 08:19 AM
O'Reilly fun...

http://jamespoling.blogspot.com/2005/01/sergeant-falafel.html

#13844: Orac — 01/20 at 08:42 AM
This is the usual M.O. for hosts like O'Reilly. If a guest becomes too challenging to him or is clearly getting the better of him, he will ratchet up the volume, talk over the guest, interrupt the guest, or, if all else fails, tell the guest to "shut up."

What really needs to be done is for someone to tell O'Reilly bluntly that he is utterly wrong, that he has no clue what he is talking about when it comes to science, and not back down when the inevitable tsunami of abusive verbiage comes his way. Of course, the problem is, O'Reilly will just cut off his microphone and dismiss him.

#13845: — 01/20 at 08:49 AM
"GRANT: Science is always incomplete in all areas.

O’REILLY: Well, I don’t agree with that. Science is not always incomplete and I’ll give you an example. There are twenty-four hours in a day. Alright. That’s science. And there are four seasons. That’s science. So you can state things with certainty in biology or any other science you want. "
***********************************************************
OK, Grant gets an "A" in my Science Methods for Elementary Education class; OReilly an "F". My "so dumb they major in el ed" students can understand the nature of scientific investigation (and create lessons that allow little tiny kiddos to "do" science). What's the matter with journalists?

(BTW I have heard my students characterized that way by a non-ed faculty. I didn't push the fact that the vast majority of them made A's and B's in HIS class.)

#13846: Les Lane — 01/20 at 08:57 AM
Check out News Hounds (http://www.newshounds.us/) "We watch Fox so you don't have to". "it's pinheads like me" - this is where O'Reilly gets it right.

#13847: — 01/20 at 08:58 AM
I still think all guests should boycott O'Reilly until he signs a contract stating that for every time he interrupts a guest, the guest gets to immediately punch him once in the face.

I'd become a daily viewer.

#13848: — 01/20 at 09:42 AM
For some reason none of us can really explain, my housemates and I watch O'Reilly regularly. He's always on after Jeopardy and well, we just get sucked in. The worst thing about him, I think, is that next to Sean Hannity, he looks like a reasonable guy. Hannity believes that Christians are oppressed, and he's dedicated his life and his show to convince the rest of America of this. My favorite part of the ID interview is when Billy-boy seems to think that science is "only that which has been done." WHAT?

#13849: — 01/20 at 09:45 AM
O'Reilly is an obnoxious embarrassment.

#13853: Orac — 01/20 at 10:26 AM
Unfortunately, like Kate, I too sometimes listen to or watch the right-wing talkers. They can be enormously entertaining. Or, at least, they used to be. Sometimes they used to even express opinions contrary to that of the Republican Party. No more. I've been listening to them less and less.

#13854: — 01/20 at 10:27 AM
Gwangi,
You are missing my point just a bit. The guest who goes on O'Reilly has to understand the game. It is not about a reasoned discussion, or proving points, or educating anyone. It is about "I'm going to stick it to you, and prove to my viewers that I'm a real guy, and that my 'common sense' sends these liberal eggheads spinning". So if you respond with a discourse on Philosophy of Science, you lose. You've got 2 minutes. So "Bill, you are a dumbass" is probably your best bet. Followed by "Bill, shut up and let me tell you how this thing works". He will probably shut off your mike, but you'll have made your point that you can stand up to his bullying bullshit. That is what matters here

#13855: John — 01/20 at 10:28 AM
I really do not know where you get your information.

But I watched the interview and that is not how it went at all. O'Reilly has been having problems with bloggers adding words and deleting them. You even admit you did not watch it. I saw the interview and the majority of the discussion was about this guys work and theory's.

You are just WAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off base man!

You need to get some Kool-Aid cause you are way off.

#13857: — 01/20 at 10:37 AM

Next to Sean Hannity, [Bill O'Reilly] looks like a reasonable guy.

Yes!

Clearly, O'Reilly is a loathsome maggot. However, I can usually ignore his pathetic ranting, because part of me thinks that he is just "doing his job" - that is, he obnoxiously pumps up his ideas in order to provide "quality entertainment."

On the other hand...

...I would really like to stab Hannity in the face.

Is that so wrong?

Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

-Jerry Garcia