Evolution Intelligent Design

Daily Show Postmortem

Spread the love

I particularly like this postmortem of last night’s panel on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It’s from the Internet Infidels (you can find more negative reviews of my performance on last night’s panel at talk.origins):

I was majorly disappointed in that The Daily Show chose a panel group format last night in their discussion of evolution. I think more harm than good was dealt to the side of evolution.

This is because there is currently a kind of understanding among evolutionary [biologists] scientists that any debate/forum which puts ID on the same level/platform as evolution only serves to advance in the public’s consciousness, a notion of validity for ID claims, and even lends the false impression that it is indeed science. Therefore, these evolutionary scientists will not participate in such venues, and they regularly refuse such invitations.

So I was disappointed that Larson chose to appear next to Dembski. Perhaps he considered it more important to advance himself at the expense of a very important principle.

And so, eventhough Dembski had very few words to say, he knew damned well that just showing up in a chair physically side-by-side with an evolutionary scientist would significantly advance the public perception of ID, regardless of the fact it was on The Daily Show. These creation [Discovery Institute] guys have very few, if any, other opportunities to do so — even in non-televised programs with virtually tiny audiences! And then to make the situation even worse, having a third person speak in support of “metaphysical consciousness reality” mumbo-jumbo just made the articulate sounding Dembski (seated in between) look that much more credible. ARRRGHHH!!!

So, IMO, Dembski was effectively the big winner last night. Too bad Stewart didn’t realize this.

For the source, go here.

12 Replies to “Daily Show Postmortem

  1. 1
    mechanicalbirds says:

    haha! Congrats!

    I’m still waiting for Internet Infidels to speculate on what kind of worldview can provide the preconditions to justify scientific knowledge… Hmm

  2. 2
    Bombadill says:

    Where’s the video clip??? I missed it… passed my bedtime.

  3. 3
    Gumpngreen says:

    The previous day’s show replays in the early evening, so you can still catch it.

  4. 4
    jzs says:


    “These creation [Discovery Institute] guys have very few, if any, other opportunities to do so — even in non-televised programs with virtually tiny audiences!”

    Lookie what I found:


    Most of those shows have a very, very large viewership.

  5. 5
    Jedi Deist says:

    Great link jzs, thanks!

  6. 6
    jboze3131 says:

    so, this guy says that evolutionists shouldn’t even show up to discuss the topic, because it gives these ID fools (they’re anti-science religious zealots, remember- but Richard Dawkins, who says that religion is evil and child abuse, is probably an idol of these folks) respectabilty? so, refuse to discuss the issue and pretend that there aren’t major problems, and paint those who point out the VERY major problems as anti-science idiots?

    if that’s the case, doesn’t even posting on the issue as this person did contradict the party line (that no one should even show ID theorists and others any respect at all?)

    it’s so obvious which side of this debate is reasonable and interested in discovery and which side is devoted to one line of reasoning and interpretion, and to hell with discovery and dissenting views. if you don’t follow their worldview, then you’re an idiot, an anti-science moron, and a religious nut who wants a theocracy via a conspiracy to overthrow “real” science. i think i’ll stick with the side that isn’t demanding a purely materialistic view of the world and is actually willing to discuss the issue with others, as opposed to trying to marginalize those in the other camp.

    i also like how he says bill isn’t at all credible, yet provides no reason for claiming this. he gets angry at the thought that americans would see bill and want to discuss his ideas? GASP! what a terrible idea! i can understand being angry at that! i say death penalty to anyone who takes bill’s work seriously and wants to discuss the issue. that, and as proven with the other comments here, the bogus claim is that these people don’t appear on any tv shows with any viewers. hardball gets under 1 million viewers, jon gibsons show probably scores higher (it’s on eariler), no doubt the PBS newshour gets 1 million+ viewers, and on and on.

  7. 7
    jboze3131 says:

    thanks for the link on the videos. one thing you can learn from those videos- the natl center for science education (i think that’s the organization’s name?) is totally dishonest. nick matzke, the spokesperson for that group told enless lies on both tony snow’s fox show and dayside with linda vester (with juliet huddy hosting that particular show.) he claimed that there is no science to ID, and it’s all theology. he claimed that the discovery institutue and ID theory supporters in general are actually creationists who are just trying to rename creationism to get their views into the schools by fooling the public and courts. he claimed the discovery institute wants ID to be required in schools.

    tony snow challenged metzke on these various lies, and both stephen meyer and jay richards also did a nice job of exposing his many lies. richards pointed out that metzke was telling blatant lies and that DI doesn’t WANT ID to be required. they merely want evolution taught fully with the good and the bad, the strong and the weak (tho, i’d argue personally that there’s no ‘strong’ in the theory). DI also wants teachers to be FREE to teach the ideas if they CHOOSE to do so. NCSE- headed by a militant, often dishonest, atheist, and the spokesperson is a liar as well. i’m not sure what on earth these people are thinking when they tell such lies. it’s an outrage.

    oh, btw, metzke also claimed that the DI is a creationist organization and that the priveleged planet contains no science and that it’s simply theology. we should make a drinking game- whenever the NCSE people go on tv and tell a lie, you take a drink. probably not a very safe game, considering we’d all be drunk before each 4-5 min interview is even finished!

  8. 8
    jboze3131 says:

    oops. sorry. the dishonest NCSE spokesperson is nick matzke not metzke. (i said his name right at first but then got confused!)

    one last point- matzke says that creationism isn’t a theory. of course, that’s also false, it’s clearly a theory. there is evidence that one could point to to support the interpretation that creationism is true. hugh ross is an astronomer, and he’s an old earth creationist, along with many other scientists who are part of his group. YEC’s are scientists as well. many of them have PhD’s in hard sciences and can support many of their claims with evidence as well.

    too many scientists think that only an idea with the majority support is a theory, and anything else is psuedoscience and nonsense. that’s maddening, because it’s 1. arrogant beyond belief, and 2. insane. no one in their right mind will argue that science can answer every question in every aspect of life. the theory of everything that some are working on will never come to pass- no one field can explain everything in the universe, and to think it can is just downright stupid.

  9. 9
    DaveScot says:

    Nick Matzke is Wesley Elsberry’s student in “Specious and Disingenuous Rhetorical and Technical Studies” (SADRATS 101).

  10. 10
    jboze3131 says:

    lol. nice.

    i can’t decide who is worse- the people like him who spread the disinformation or the journanlists who often refuse to hear the other side and refuse to expose the obvious lies he tells. and with a straight face, he sits there and tells blatant lies that anyone with access to the net and google can debunk in a matter of seconds.

  11. 11
    Conspirator says:

    “So I was disappointed that Larson chose to appear next to Dembski. Perhaps he considered it more important to advance himself at the expense of a very important principle.”

    Or maybe he doesn’t agree with principle.

    What is with these people? It seems they’ve conditioned themselves to hold people who disagree with them in contempt. It couldn’t be that Larson disagrees with how the darwinists should or should not engage in the debate. No… he has to be a contemptable person… on opportunist.

  12. 12
    johnnyb says:

    I find it interesting that the nature of science is that it is supposed to be “public”. The experiments are supposed to be repeatable, and the evidence should be open for all to see, so in the end, the public can decide if they want what to believe.

    However, evolutionists seem to want science to be “private” in their own segment. They want to be the sole arbiters of what the evidence is, and how it is presented. This is contrary to the entire “public” nature of science and also makes a mockery of what has made it equivalent with truth in the modern society. If the public cannot see that it is clearly true based on reasonings and experiment, then to prevent them from their own investigation into the truth in public debate and discussion is frankly against everything that science is supposed to stand for. It turns science from “public” to “private”, and makes “scientific truth” a consent to an established dogma.

Leave a Reply