Don't know if anyone caught The Daily Show last week. Jon Stewart and Co. were doing week-long "special coverage" of the evolution/intelligent design debate.
It's no secret the Stewart is a progressive Democrat, but I guess I hadn't really thought about evolution/ID being an issue split exactly down party lines before. Most of the show segments made fun of Creationists and small town fundies. I'm a big Daily Show fan, but I was a bit dissapointed that almost all the segments had such an uneven slant. If you're gonna make fun of the fundies, then make fun of the evolution fanatics, too. I generally vote Democrat, but I subscribe to the Intelligent Design theory, so I was a bit conflicted.
One thing's for sure; that roundtable segment was rediculous. They really shouldn't try to pull that off anymore. Talk about pithy. Good grief.
0
The Daily Show's Schmevolution week
Started by
finnegan
, Sep 19 2005 12:40 PM
8 replies to this topic
#2
Peter T Chattaway
-
- Member
- 26,962 posts
He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
Posted 19 September 2005 - 02:46 PM
"Evolution fanatics"? Isn't that kind of like saying "the-earth-is-round fanatics"?
#3
Josh Hurst
-
- Moderator
- 4,818 posts
Let's all just pray on it for a while.
Posted 19 September 2005 - 03:14 PM
I dunno... Jon and the gang certainly made creationists look like fools, but, then again, they kinda made many EVOLUTIONISTS look like fools, too. I got the impression that Jon definitely leans toward evolution, but I think he was willing to point out some of the weaker points of either theory.
#4
finnegan
-
- Member
- 195 posts
Member
Posted 19 September 2005 - 04:59 PM
QUOTE(Peter T Chattaway @ Sep 19 2005, 03:46 PM)
"Evolution fanatics"? Isn't that kind of like saying "the-earth-is-round fanatics"?
You sound a lot like some of the reporters on the Daily Show. Something that the majority of western society fails to understand is that science is a means, not an end. It is the quest for an answer, not the answer. Paleontologists are not as infallable as the earth is round. Just ask the Piltdown Man and the Brontosaurus.
#5
Peter T Chattaway
-
- Member
- 26,962 posts
He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
Posted 19 September 2005 - 06:23 PM
finnegan wrote:
: You sound a lot like some of the reporters on the Daily Show.
Quite by accident, I assure you, as I have never seen more than a few minutes of the show.
: Something that the majority of western society fails to understand is that science is a
: means, not an end.
Well of course science is a means. That is what the anti-evolutionsts -- and ESPECIALLY the Intelligent Design people, who as far as I can tell have offered no theories that conform to the scientific method, and thus no theories that can be falsified or verified or tested for their predictive power -- fail to recognize.
: It is the quest for an answer, not the answer.
Science is the quest. Theories are the answers. True, they are only provisional answers, but that is true of ALL scientific theories, any one of which may have to be revised tomorrow based on some new discovery or other.
And so far, with regard to biological origins, no one has offered a better theory that accounts for all the evidence than evolution. Indeed, many IDers don't oppose evolution (an 18th-century theory) at all -- and they don't even necessarily oppose all forms of Darwinian natural selection (a 19th-century theory) -- they just oppose certain modern theories about how we got from one species to another species, or about how certain basic building blocks (like the cell) came into place, etc.
: Paleontologists are not as infallable as the earth is round. Just ask the Piltdown Man
: and the Brontosaurus.
I think what you mean to say is that there is more theorizing required in evolutionary science than in astronomy, or that we do not rely upon evolutionary science on a daily basis (and thus prove it on a daily basis) to the extent that we rely upon (and thus prove) astronomy, or something like that. This is true. It is also irrelevant.
Given a choice between a paleontologist -- i.e. someone whose life revolves around doing the homework -- and a lawyer (like IDer Phillip Johnson) or a chemist (like IDer Michael Behe) or a mathematician (like IDer William Dembski), I think I'll turn to the paleontologist. This is hardly a question of "infallibility"; rather, it is a question of "reliability" and "credibility" and so on and so on, and the fact that these IDers have been caught making some blatantly wrong statements about the state of evolutionary science (please, Johnson, tell us just once WHICH scientists believe that whales evolved from rats...?) does not incline me to take them all that seriously.
: You sound a lot like some of the reporters on the Daily Show.
Quite by accident, I assure you, as I have never seen more than a few minutes of the show.
: Something that the majority of western society fails to understand is that science is a
: means, not an end.
Well of course science is a means. That is what the anti-evolutionsts -- and ESPECIALLY the Intelligent Design people, who as far as I can tell have offered no theories that conform to the scientific method, and thus no theories that can be falsified or verified or tested for their predictive power -- fail to recognize.
: It is the quest for an answer, not the answer.
Science is the quest. Theories are the answers. True, they are only provisional answers, but that is true of ALL scientific theories, any one of which may have to be revised tomorrow based on some new discovery or other.
And so far, with regard to biological origins, no one has offered a better theory that accounts for all the evidence than evolution. Indeed, many IDers don't oppose evolution (an 18th-century theory) at all -- and they don't even necessarily oppose all forms of Darwinian natural selection (a 19th-century theory) -- they just oppose certain modern theories about how we got from one species to another species, or about how certain basic building blocks (like the cell) came into place, etc.
: Paleontologists are not as infallable as the earth is round. Just ask the Piltdown Man
: and the Brontosaurus.
I think what you mean to say is that there is more theorizing required in evolutionary science than in astronomy, or that we do not rely upon evolutionary science on a daily basis (and thus prove it on a daily basis) to the extent that we rely upon (and thus prove) astronomy, or something like that. This is true. It is also irrelevant.
Given a choice between a paleontologist -- i.e. someone whose life revolves around doing the homework -- and a lawyer (like IDer Phillip Johnson) or a chemist (like IDer Michael Behe) or a mathematician (like IDer William Dembski), I think I'll turn to the paleontologist. This is hardly a question of "infallibility"; rather, it is a question of "reliability" and "credibility" and so on and so on, and the fact that these IDers have been caught making some blatantly wrong statements about the state of evolutionary science (please, Johnson, tell us just once WHICH scientists believe that whales evolved from rats...?) does not incline me to take them all that seriously.
#6
Michael Todd
-
- Member
- 680 posts
Registered Nurse, Amateur Historian, and Future Theologian
Posted 19 September 2005 - 11:25 PM
Let me know if the Daily Show ever rips on Gap Theory, which they might if I ever force the state of Kentucky to teach it to balance out against the young earth and Hugh Ross crowd.
#7
finnegan
-
- Member
- 195 posts
Member
Posted 20 September 2005 - 12:16 AM
QUOTE(Peter T Chattaway @ Sep 19 2005, 07:23 PM)
finnegan wrote:
I think what you mean to say is that there is more theorizing required in evolutionary science than in astronomy, or that we do not rely upon evolutionary science on a daily basis (and thus prove it on a daily basis) to the extent that we rely upon (and thus prove) astronomy, or something like that. This is true. It is also irrelevant.
I think what you mean to say is that there is more theorizing required in evolutionary science than in astronomy, or that we do not rely upon evolutionary science on a daily basis (and thus prove it on a daily basis) to the extent that we rely upon (and thus prove) astronomy, or something like that. This is true. It is also irrelevant.
No, Peter. What I mean to say is that I object to your comparison of apples and oranges. To say that humans evolved from single-cell organisms is not in the same factual ballpark as the statement "the earth is round". We can see evidence of the earth spinning with our naked human eyes on a daily basis. Far less verifiable is the theory that we are and always have been evolving (originating from single celled organisms, and currently humans, and tomorrow--who knows?). The evidence is sketchy at best.
Michael, I did not see every "Schmevolution" segment, but I did see most of them, and I don't recall any reference to the Gap Theory... But they did have a rather kooky metaphysical theorist at the round table "discussion". That was interesting.
#8
Peter T Chattaway
-
- Member
- 26,962 posts
He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
Posted 20 September 2005 - 12:27 AM
finnegan wrote:
: What I mean to say is that I object to your comparison of apples and oranges.
To which all I can say is that they are both fruit, so you may as well stop saying one of them isn't.
: To say that humans evolved from single-cell organisms is not in the same factual
: ballpark as the statement "the earth is round".
Actually, it is, if both statements are true.
Perhaps what you mean is not whether either of these statements is "factual" but whether these statements reflect different processes and/or degrees of observation and theorization. But if that IS what you mean, then you are saying that my interpretation of your earlier remark was correct.
: We can see evidence of the earth spinning with our naked human eyes on a daily basis.
Yes and no. We do see evidence that leads us to create the theory that the Earth is round (and spinning). But the same evidence has led other people to form very different kinds of theories. The question is, which theory is better at explaining all the evidence that we have at our fingertips NOW, and how can we tell the difference?
Likewise evolution. The evidence for it is out there, and there is more and more evidence for it as time goes by (including the spread of species across drifting continents, the shared DNA across species, and so on). But some people form very different kinds of theories anyway. The question is, which ones are better at explaining the evidence, and how can we tell the difference?
: Far less verifiable is the theory that we are and always have been evolving . . .
: The evidence is sketchy at best.
As I say, the evidence is out there, and it is less sketchy with every passing day. The theory of evolution has been around since the 1700s. In the 1800s, Darwin proposed a mechanism for how it might work, and he called this mechanism "natural selection". Whether Darwin's mechanism can adequately explain ALL forms of evolution is certainly an interesting question. But even the most reputable IDers out there acknowledge that evolution itself, including evolution from one species to another, is a scientific fact.
As I have said before, if God did not create life through evolution, then he sure went out of his way to make it LOOK like he created life through evolution. I prefer to think that God isn't trying to trick us.
: What I mean to say is that I object to your comparison of apples and oranges.
To which all I can say is that they are both fruit, so you may as well stop saying one of them isn't.
: To say that humans evolved from single-cell organisms is not in the same factual
: ballpark as the statement "the earth is round".
Actually, it is, if both statements are true.
Perhaps what you mean is not whether either of these statements is "factual" but whether these statements reflect different processes and/or degrees of observation and theorization. But if that IS what you mean, then you are saying that my interpretation of your earlier remark was correct.
: We can see evidence of the earth spinning with our naked human eyes on a daily basis.
Yes and no. We do see evidence that leads us to create the theory that the Earth is round (and spinning). But the same evidence has led other people to form very different kinds of theories. The question is, which theory is better at explaining all the evidence that we have at our fingertips NOW, and how can we tell the difference?
Likewise evolution. The evidence for it is out there, and there is more and more evidence for it as time goes by (including the spread of species across drifting continents, the shared DNA across species, and so on). But some people form very different kinds of theories anyway. The question is, which ones are better at explaining the evidence, and how can we tell the difference?
: Far less verifiable is the theory that we are and always have been evolving . . .
: The evidence is sketchy at best.
As I say, the evidence is out there, and it is less sketchy with every passing day. The theory of evolution has been around since the 1700s. In the 1800s, Darwin proposed a mechanism for how it might work, and he called this mechanism "natural selection". Whether Darwin's mechanism can adequately explain ALL forms of evolution is certainly an interesting question. But even the most reputable IDers out there acknowledge that evolution itself, including evolution from one species to another, is a scientific fact.
As I have said before, if God did not create life through evolution, then he sure went out of his way to make it LOOK like he created life through evolution. I prefer to think that God isn't trying to trick us.
#9
Peter T Chattaway
-
- Member
- 26,962 posts
He's fictional, but you can't have everything.
Posted 20 September 2005 - 12:37 AM
Alan Thomas wrote:
: I sure hope it's not split along party lines. Yuck.
Have you not been following all the op-ed pieces on how films like March of the Penguins and The Exorcism of Emily Rose are supposedly right-wing intelligent-design propaganda pieces (or, to be more nuanced about it, on how these films are so popular because they appeal to right-wing intelligent-design sensibilities)? As far as the pundits are concerns, "intelligent design" does seem to be a red-state thing.
: I sure hope it's not split along party lines. Yuck.
Have you not been following all the op-ed pieces on how films like March of the Penguins and The Exorcism of Emily Rose are supposedly right-wing intelligent-design propaganda pieces (or, to be more nuanced about it, on how these films are so popular because they appeal to right-wing intelligent-design sensibilities)? As far as the pundits are concerns, "intelligent design" does seem to be a red-state thing.
