…and this is a 
Miller on Colbert
Category: Creationism
Posted on: June 17, 2008 1:09 PM, by PZ Myers
Here you go:
It was a good performance, but I think he tried a little too hard to cram a whole lecture into a few minutes — but then maybe that's what you need to do on Colbert, ride hard over his attempts to derail you. I also disagree with his premise that creationism has its roots in anti-authoritarianism and rebelliousness, which he touched on briefly here but goes on at length in his book…but yeah, he's dead on target when he points out that ID has no evidence, and is basically trying to cheat its way into the curriculum.
Comments
Indeed. Very goo.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 17, 2008 1:21 PM
It doesn't have its roots in meaningful anti-authoritarianism and rebelliousness, but those are aspects of the human psyche which religious authorities try to co-opt for their religion. I believe that they have some success, however lame it may look to outsiders.
I tried to figure out what this might mean as written:
but I think the only reasonable conclusion is that a "d" in "good" is missing.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 17, 2008 1:21 PM
I was on board with him up until his "welfare queen" crack. If making evolution palatable to the right wing means bringing up racist stereotypes, count me out.
Posted by: Speck | June 17, 2008 1:25 PM
Well, I guess I'll just have to repost my comment from the earlier thread:
Posted by: SC | June 17, 2008 1:26 PM
I just finished watching this. I disagreed with only one comment Miller made. Creationism and ID are not equivalent. The political use of them treats them as equivalent but in and of themselves, the views are not equivalent. A factory line is a good analogy. The fine tuning argument also illustrates the non-equivalence. The "evolution of an intelligent designer" argument PZ recently posted also illustrates how creationism and ID as hypotheses are non-equivalent.
Again, the Discovery Institute and others politically utilizes them in an equivalent manner.
Posted by: Prof MTH | June 17, 2008 1:27 PM
I doubt it has its ultimate roots in anti-authoritarianism, but I agree that that's how it gets its hooks in people. "Heeeey you're right! I don't like these know-it-all eggheads telling me I don't know where I come from! Tell me more about your nonsense!"
Posted by: Mike P | June 17, 2008 1:28 PM
It is only anti-authoritarian in the sense that the American biblical fundamentalists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries considered modernists as authoritarian.
Posted by: me | June 17, 2008 1:28 PM
Here is a goo performance.
Posted by: Janine ID | June 17, 2008 1:29 PM
#3
I agree that the "welfare queen" remark didn't work. I didn't really interpret it as pandering to the right wing, though. I thought he was trying to be sarcastic and out-Colbert Colbert. Not a good idea.
Posted by: Lowell | June 17, 2008 1:32 PM
Government involvement via funding and government interference are not the same thing. I believe Miller said "interference" and not "involvement". If I am wrong, then yes, funding is involvement in some capacity and so he is technically wrong but I took him to mean "interference". But that is not to say that the government does not interfere either. As we know, under Bush, the government has grossly interfered.
For me too, the "welfare queen" comment made me physically recoil.
Posted by: Prof MTH | June 17, 2008 1:36 PM
Agreed with the above posters. I was generally on-board with him until he brought up the "welfare queens" comment. If you take the horrible connotations and racial stereotypes inherent in that phrase away, it was a good analogy.
For what it was worth, it was good seeing a defender of good science up there, and getting the word out.
So, when are you going to go on the Colbert Report PZ?
Posted by: Architeuthis | June 17, 2008 1:36 PM
Prof MTH, in what way are they not equivalent? They are, in every practical regard, the same hypothesis mutated for political purposes. If you're not familiar with just how true that is, do a Google search for "cdesign proponentsists." "Intelligent design" is purely creationism with a few pseudoscientific gubbins glued on in an attempt to evade prior court rulings about the teaching of creationism.
Posted by: Nentuaby | June 17, 2008 1:36 PM
The direction of scientific inquiry gets crafted by the government when it decides how to dole out funding, but the *conclusions* have not been influenced by the government (at least not until the Bush administration) the way they are in Muslim countries.
I think that was his point.
What creationists are trying to do is influence scientific conclusions and how they are taught in academia.
Posted by: M07 | June 17, 2008 1:37 PM
The Welfare Queen crack didn't bother me so much. Maybe not the most tasteful choice but welfare abuser would have been better. It's a good analogy just obviously poorly chosen words as some took it offensively.
Other than that I think you have to filibuster to get past Colbert's skillful derailments.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 17, 2008 1:38 PM
The creationists who have solemnly assured me that my godless Darwinism is just an excuse to live a licentious life will be greatly surprised to hear that their beliefs are rooted in anti-authoritarianism.
It sounds like Miller needs to read Altemeyer.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 17, 2008 1:40 PM
I don't know, why did he feel the need to start with all kinds of clichés that are so damn wrong, to flatter the American audiences, for a minute I thought I was hearing McCain talking :
- regarding science as the enemy would be downright "anti-american"
- america has become the "greatest scientific nation in the world" because it didn't allow for any governement interference
- americans have this great quality that scientists have, the ability to disregard what the establishment says : "a culture of disrespect"
Yep, this guy is just as dangerous as the creationists, repeating the same old tired clichés so that Americans don't think too much and feel flattered so that he can sell them his story afterwards.
Why can't he just tell people the truth, without all the sugar-coating ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 17, 2008 1:42 PM
I'm pretty certain that when he means, nation of "disrespect" and anti-authority, he means in science. One SHOULD disrespect all authority in science, at least in a manner that one tries to test all claims for themselves. Is this not what science is about?
Posted by: Ravi | June 17, 2008 1:42 PM
That's a little extreme.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 17, 2008 1:45 PM
ok correct my post #16 please,
Yep, this guy is almost as dangerous as the creationists,...
Does it change much ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 17, 2008 1:51 PM
I listed several examples but here is a more elaborate explanation: take the factory analogy. Let us say we want to build a car (the universe). First you need blue prints. Then you must create the parts, and then finally assemble those parts. The specific Judeo-Xtian literalist 6 day creationism does include all these steps. However, intelligent design, the hypothesis itself, only addresses the latter step. Some variations, such as the fine tuning argument, assert that the universe itself is a necessarily existent substance along with the intelligent designer. The designer just put it together or tweaked it. The gnostic version of creationism explicitly separates creation from design. (I like the linked story, as a myth.)
The term "cdesign proponentsists" is a result of the political use of the two kinds of hypotheses, not the content of the hypotheses themselves.
Posted by: Prof MTH | June 17, 2008 1:54 PM
The direction of scientific inquiry gets crafted by the government when it decides how to dole out funding, but the *conclusions* have not been influenced by the government (at least not until the Bush administration) the way they are in Muslim countries.
I agree that this is the generous interpretation, but since he doesn't actually say this it can leave people with the wrong (if you are correct) impression.
It's a good analogy just obviously poorly chosen words as some took it offensively.
I took it offensively because it is a racist myth that has been used to powerful effect by the right to stigmatize poor people and stir up support for dismantling social programs.
Posted by: SC | June 17, 2008 1:56 PM
What a pair of pillocks.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 17, 2008 1:57 PM
It's important to remember that the Colbert Report is a comedy show (it's easy to forget because it has higher journalistic standards than most TV news programming). Miller may well have been having a little joke.
Posted by: ndt | June 17, 2008 1:57 PM
I thought that what Miller was saying is that science is a very American enterprise because of it's multiple points of entry into the field and the overall egalitarian nature of any results-driven field. Those that stick to dogma in science are quickly weeded out when some upstart scientist overturns the orthodoxy of the establisment through new discoveries.
Posted by: amplexus | June 17, 2008 1:58 PM
Instead of all this nonsense :
regarding science as the enemy would be downright "anti-american"
- america has become the "greatest scientific nation in the world" because it didn't allow for any governement interference
- americans have this great quality that scientists have, the ability to disregard what the establishment says : "a culture of disrespect"
Couldn't he just say :
"America is at great risk of losing its leadership in Science"
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 17, 2008 2:01 PM
Ooops, I accidentally deleted the last part that explains the "kinds" terminology.
Creationism is capable of answering the question "Why is there something verses nothing?" Although it does so erroneously. ID cannot answer that question without assuming a creator. ID in and of itself, especially the Fine Tuning Argument, is only an (erroneous) explanation for "Why is the universe the way in which we find it?"
Posted by: Prof MTH | June 17, 2008 2:01 PM
No, It doesn't. He's far from being anywhere close to as dangerous as Creationists. Sure he's got some views on theology I find to be wrong but he's pushing evidence based knowledge when he speaks on science. Those statements you quoted above, I'm not sure I find major issues with. I'm sure they are better laid out and reasoned in his book or in a longer format than the short time spurts one is alloted on a comedy show. I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt because he comes from the side of honesty when defending evidence based science. That doesn't mean that my mind couldn't be changed but before I put him in the same garbage dump as the lying ass creationists who wouldn't know honest debate if you crammed it down their throat, I'm willing to find out how he reasons those short chopped up statements.
If you feel the need to condemn him on a few phrases on 6 min segment on a comedy show that is 100% your right.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 17, 2008 2:03 PM
Here's the classic video of Miller tearing ID (and creationists) a new one for anyone who is interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Posted by: geoff | June 17, 2008 2:05 PM
He does. I listened to him the other day on NPR and he made that very point. Again, he could be harboring some strange neo-patriotic opinions but I'm siding with there is more it than what can be conveyed on a 6 mins segment.
Was it a bad choice on his part to use those in a format that doesn't allow him to fully explain? Maybe.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 17, 2008 2:06 PM
What a pair of pillocks.
Translation, please.
Posted by: SC | June 17, 2008 2:09 PM
"more to it"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 17, 2008 2:10 PM
I was a little pissed at Colbert for not providing Miller some more space and oxygen. I would like to have heard more full sentences, fewer cut-off phrases. How could Miller hope to sound coherent at all? But that is the format, and given that fact, I think he did all right.
I think his effort to paint science as "cowboy-American," rough-and-ready, independence, and ID as an effete little parasitic weakling trying to suckle at the government teet is a fun rhetorical flourish. I doubt it's true in any literal sense, but I do enjoy seeing the tables more or less turned like that.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | June 17, 2008 2:13 PM
ID is "rebellious" in the sense that TRUE rebels submit to God and will let you have their slaves when you pry them from their cold, dead hands.
Posted by: mothwentbad | June 17, 2008 2:17 PM
I hate them about the same anyway...
Regarding the video, well enough,
that`s thousands of pages of "god did it"
and nothing more. Anyway, thats too few
screen time to explain evolution.
Posted by: Lord Zero | June 17, 2008 2:19 PM
Look, I'm commenting on this video.
It took him from 1min20sec to make a totally weak and unbelievable argument.
Why are Americans at such great risk (which he doesn't even say), if they are so good ?
They've had creationism very active in this country over the last 25 years, and :
- they have become the "greatest scientific nation in the world" without the need for any government intervention
- they have this wonderful ability that scientists have
- and of course nobody would ever ever say that they are anti-science now would they, that would be so, hmmm "anti-american"
And now, suddenly, things are changing ? Creationists are becoming way more active are they ? That's why we shouldn't have any government intervention ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 17, 2008 2:23 PM
The meme that creationism is rooted in anti-authoritarianism is inextricably linked to the false notion that science is a set of beliefs handed down by a sacerdotal caste rather than a set of methods which can be employed by anyone.
Thanks for th goo, Janine. Kim Gordon is truly one of the most alluring women to grace the planet.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 17, 2008 2:29 PM
I didn't know Ken Miller was a Catholic.
That's the only part of this interview I found shocking.
Otherwise, I thought it was good, and he did a good job steamrolling Colbert's attempts to usurp him.
Posted by: JStein | June 17, 2008 2:35 PM
Is Welfare Queen a racial stereotype? To be honest it's not one I had heard before.
Posted by: Josh West | June 17, 2008 2:49 PM
SC@30 "Pillock": pratt, wally, twerp, nincompoop, twit, idiot. Googling the term, I find two things I didn't know (a) It's specific to the UK, and (b) It was originally a slang term for the penis, "but fairly inoffensive, now its meaning has been forgotten" (www.peevish.co.uk/slang/p.htm). It expresses mild, shoulder-shrugging contempt.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 17, 2008 2:56 PM
Josh West, Welfare Queen is an old Ronald Reagan trope. And, yes, welfare is code for "black".
Posted by: Janine ID | June 17, 2008 2:56 PM
"the false notion that science is a set of beliefs handed down by a sacerdotal caste rather than a set of methods which can be employed by anyone."
If Ichthyic were here rather than out chasing stingrays or something, he'd say "projection, projection, projection".
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 17, 2008 2:58 PM
He's always like this. It's extremely frustrating when you're actually interested in what the person has to say.
And those interested in seeing more cuts to public science funding should stick with it, by all means. I think the maverick-scientist game is a dangerous one to play in the American political culture today. Science is a cooperative, social activity - there's nothing shameful about that.
Google it.
Posted by: SC | June 17, 2008 3:00 PM
SC, I already posted a link.
Posted by: Janine ID | June 17, 2008 3:03 PM
Yeah, I went and looked it up after I posted. It's odd, even though I don't ever recall hearing the phrase before, the image that popped into my head initially wasn't black, but the Alabama/South Georgia white trailer mom. Maybe a regional thing.
Posted by: Josh West | June 17, 2008 3:05 PM
Reagan was a nasty piece of work. Not many people immediately think of the captive teen-brides on Mormon polygamist compounds when they think of welfare recipients.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 17, 2008 3:09 PM
You guys need to loosen up a little bit if you're *that* offended by a welfare queen crack. Newsflash: The USA is loaded with people who abuse welfare on purpose. Pointing out the obvious shouldn't be taboo. I thought he did a great job, and was right on the mark.
Posted by: Jesse | June 17, 2008 3:12 PM
SC, I already posted a link.
Yeah, I didn't see it until too late. :)
Nick Gotts,
Thanks. Gank, stroppy, taffy, pillock,... - so many new words! Are you saying Colbert is a pillock? You know he's in character, right?
Posted by: SC | June 17, 2008 3:18 PM
I agree completely. To be more precise, they're juridical people, aka corporations.
Posted by: SC | June 17, 2008 3:25 PM
What was great about it, apart from the fact that he doesn't want to change anything and keep everybody thinking that America is the greatest scientific nation in the world, and that Americans have this wonderful abiltiy that scientists have ?
Oh, I forgot, he also said that we shouldn't allow ID in our classes. And does that change anything ? Have we had ID in our classes for the last 25 years ? Didn't stop Americans to be the only developped nation in the world where a majority of people still believe in a 6000 yold earth did it ?
What did he say that was so great ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 17, 2008 3:26 PM
I think that's pretty obvious.
negentropyeater, Colbert is a comedian who acts as if he were some C**lt*r or Limbaugh type, but in fact parodizes them. He gave the famous speech at Bush's "re"inauguration: "This administration isn't sinking, this administration is soaring! If anything, they're rearranging deck chairs [not on the Titanic, but] on the Hindenburg!"
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 17, 2008 3:36 PM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 17, 2008 3:37 PM
I like Miller a lot, and if you look at the work that he has done, it is grossly unfair to consider him even remotely as dangerous as a creationist. He is a solid scientist, author, and speaker arguing against the loonies of this world.
Miller appeared to be much more nervous than he usually is, and when he was on Colbert's show previously. He also came across in a very adversarial mode
I suspect that Colbert read that as well and pounced on it, to show Miller that he is the boss on his show. It was certainly not Miller's best showing. Perhaps he has been too active on the press tour for his book.
I give him a C+, he's capable of much better.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 17, 2008 3:37 PM
What's pretty obvious ?
That Miller didn't really mean the things he said ? That we should actually change nothing, because everything is fine as it is today.
Or that Colbert was very clever and pulled the whole thing out of the horse's mouth ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 17, 2008 4:04 PM
Is it me or does Colbert normally give scientists an easy time? It's authors and politicians that get most of the stick.
Posted by: Thorn | June 17, 2008 4:12 PM
No, it doesn't, and that is the problem. "Intelligent design" refuses to address mechanisms. When it does, as it must to be a testable hypotheses, it can include any number of steps. So the general proposals (creationism vs design) are logically equivalent, when considered as an explanation. It is not a coincidence that design arguments and creation arguments are the same.
But that philosophizing is all besides the point. As earlier commenters noted, ID is verifiably repackaged creationism. And you can take that to the court.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | June 17, 2008 4:19 PM
Are you saying Colbert is a pillock? You know he's in character, right? - SC
No, I didn't! Now I get it - he's pretending to be a pillock. Thanks SC. We have what's probably a very similar act, "Alan Partridge" (real name Steve Coogan). I've not found him very funny on the few occasions I've seen him, but a lot of people do.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 17, 2008 4:26 PM
All correct, but do you want a speaker who actually believes we shouldn't really change anything ?
Oh, he's arguing against the loonies but what is he actually proposing to do to make sure there are way less loonies, when he can't even tell the American people that they've got the highest percentage of loonies of all developped nations ?
I've listened to Miller several times now. He won't change anything. Only somebody who is fundamentally different from him can change things.
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 17, 2008 4:32 PM
I thought Miller did a decent job and its great for even a slight exposure of science in the mainstream media. I'm so weary of the same misunderstandings from otherwise intelligent people. I recommend Dr Stephen Miller's scientific literacy work to really understand how bad it is out there but there is a silver lining in that SL is improving...
As far as welfare queen I've seen it dozens of times and I don't think black and most people I know back home don't think black because most of the black people in town were very well educated and highly paid...I think it really depends on where you're from and the demographics of the area. If you're from the Pacific Northwest your prejudice will be very different than someone in the south or southern midwest from my personal experience.
It is really irritating when you see some "lady" get a handout twice as large as your handout to go to college while you have a 3.9 gpa and she has a 2.1. It wasn't until my third year of college and the smart grant that my handout was superior to most of my fellow students even though I had quite a few accolades. The one that pissed me off the most was a family of Sudanese who are pretty cool people but they have a brand new mercedes and bring in 60k+ a year from investments and a share in the International Cafe down the street and they actually received more aid than I with a completely full ride. At least I get free coffee whenever I go in after I helped their cousin with his Calculus homework...doesn't quite even things up though:)
Posted by: Tyr | June 17, 2008 4:53 PM
Yeah, I guess Colbert's character is quite a lot like Alan Partridge ("The Daily Mail is, arguably, the finest newspaper in the English language"). I find them both hilarious, but that's my opinion. Colbert applies it to much more topical satire, though, a bit similar to Brass Eye but much more tame.
Posted by: minimalist | June 17, 2008 4:57 PM
I like Miller. He is pro-science and charismatic, which are characteristics we need in people cheer leading science on national T.V., despite any relatively small flaws one could think up.
I don't think I have to remind you how dismal the numbers look re: the % of american public whom do not accept evolution, or that we went to the moon, or any host of other sciencey stuff. We need all the help we can get.
Posted by: Slacks | June 17, 2008 5:07 PM
We need to be supportive of professor Miller. He's trying to popularize evolution and more importantly science. I'm sure he realizes that this will earn him disrespect in the science community but he does it anyway. Thank you Dr Myers for placing this in your blog.
Posted by: bunnycatch3r | June 17, 2008 5:10 PM
Reading the comments, I'm surprised how critical everyone is being. I thought he did great.
He kept Colbert off balance through most of the interview and was able to say the bulk of his message. That alone is a feat. I think he actually did manage to "out-Colbert Colbert" a few times (the opening and the 'welfare queen' comment).
Posted by: Jesse, Dallas | June 17, 2008 5:27 PM
I preffer Daily to Colbert, it's a very fine line to walk; 'cause even if he's only pretending to be a pillock you're still left watching a pillock. Daily is pretty similar but is a bit gentler with his guests so you get to hear what they say a bit more.
Posted by: Lynnai | June 17, 2008 5:48 PM
I also thought he did a good job in the time, space, and place he had. I saw all of the cliches as him doing the Colbert schtick,trying to be over the top so as to play up to the Colbert ultra-retro conservative character. He's not the only guest to have gone that route, and it works pretty well when they're both "on". Colbert's character has no good way to reject what the guest is advocating when he's being directly pandered to like that, and Colbert seems to enjoy the challenge of trying to figure out what to say in response. I also thought he got a few pretty long statements in, given the way Colbert interviews. When he agrees with a guest he gives them a decent amount of space; when it's someone he really doesn't like, he doesn't let them finish a single sentence.
Posted by: Carlie | June 17, 2008 6:54 PM
He did his job and he handled Colbert very well. Though it seems like preaching to the converted but I suppose any airtime dedicated to real scientists is better than none.
Posted by: Kel | June 17, 2008 7:06 PM
Re 13
"...and how they are taught in academia." If by "academia" you mean the entire educational enterprise, then OK. Usually the term is reserved for the collegiate levels. In that case then, the intent of the Creationists is far more pernicious, aiming at the K - 12 crowd. In this case, teachers, usually possessing only an education degree (preemptive apologies here) simply do not have enough exposure in the subject matter at a sufficiently high level to be prepared for this kind of (often) subtle attack.
Posted by: Costanza | June 17, 2008 9:07 PM
I think Miller got one thing right, he saw them going through labels, "creationism," then "scientific creationism," then "Intelligent Design(TM)"... and the next label they use could be "Evolution." They're already pushing a straw-man version of it. Soon it will be "Evolution is how the Christian God upgrades our design... it's in the Bible, the flood (mass extinctions)... lots of death in the Bible... gradual change (mote the two different sets of ten commandments or even the gradual changes in the two different creation stories in Genesis..."
Posted by: Norman Doering | June 17, 2008 9:09 PM
Get a grip, folks. Miller was using Colbert's rhetoric to show that even the righties who don't get that Colbert is a satirist would agree with Miller's propositions. He didnt' fail at out-Colberting Colbert, he succeeded wildly.
Posted by: JakeR | June 17, 2008 9:10 PM
Black #15
Hey, I was going to plug Altemeyer! That's my job!
The sheeple who accept creationism are submitting to religious authorities. Those who are leading the sheeple may be cynically exploiting them.
Posted by: amk | June 17, 2008 9:26 PM
BlackBlakeWoops.
Posted by: amk | June 17, 2008 9:29 PM
I'm open to the he-was-trying-to-out-Colbert-Colbert idea (tentatively, as I know nothing of Miller's politics). If this was the strategy, though, I think it failed, and that the welfare-queen analogy was inexcusable even as humor. I may be alone in that, though.
Anyway, I just returned home after an eventful day at the hospital. Went in for a routine procedure, during which I fainted, and the next thing I knew I was on a stretcher on my way to the emergency room for an EKG. (It was fine, and I have two more new words for the day: "vasovagal" and "syncope.") As a delicate friggin' flower, I'm not up to a debate, so I'll give Miller the benefit of the doubt for the moment.
P.S. Mass General is a wonderful hospital with committed, caring people. I highly recommend it.
Posted by: SC | June 17, 2008 9:29 PM
Hey SC, I've had recurrent episodes of vasovagal syncopes. Trigger : blood donation
Very anoying.
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 17, 2008 9:47 PM
My dad got pissed when I tried to explain Miller's point. Of course, his definition of science is God, while mine exists.
Posted by: Orson Zedd | June 17, 2008 9:49 PM
[QUOTE]What a pair of pillocks.
Translation, please.[/QUOTE]
translation: some Brit is clueless about The Colbert Report.
[QUOTE]negentropyeater, Colbert is a comedian who acts as if he were some C**lt*r or Limbaugh type, but in fact parodizes them. [/QUOTE]
Exactly. I do wish people would do a *little* research before they pontificate and condemn.
Posted by: Steven Sullivan | June 17, 2008 10:03 PM
Over at Uncommon Descent they've got an article bemoaning Miller's notion of "truth and beauty" in evolution. The concluding sentence: If this is truth and beauty, please give me lies and ugliness.
Posted by: ngong | June 17, 2008 11:32 PM
I wish this buffoon would stop interrupting his guests. At many points Ken Miller actually had something interesting to say that I wanted to hear, but this moron kept cutting him off. He does that to all his guests. He's very egocentric. I don't know how anyone can stand Colbert. He's the most overrated guy on TV.
Posted by: lostn | June 17, 2008 11:40 PM
It's called satire, and he does it brilliantly.
Posted by: Kel | June 17, 2008 11:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QquTUR9nbC4
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 17, 2008 11:58 PM
"The "buffoon" is a comedian who parodies Bill O'Reilly. The show is a cutting and award-winning satire of right-wing political pundits. It was not a "real" interview."
I've seen many clips of Colbert's interview. Let me just say,
not once have I ever found this "comedian" funny.
Hell, I'd rather watch O'reilly, if only marginally. What's the point in having guests if you want to be the only star? O'reilly at least lets you finish a sentence sometimes.
Posted by: lostn | June 18, 2008 12:17 AM
Each to their own I suppose.
Unless you are even more egocentric than the character Corbert is playing then don't make statements like this if you don't want the answer. Some people here think the show is a brilliant parody of the right-wing talk shows. If you can't stand him, it doesn't make anyone else's opinion less valid, especially on the subjective matter. Don't take the show seriously, it's on the comedy channel, not C-Span.Posted by: Kel | June 18, 2008 12:28 AM
^ What Kel said.
Posted by: Geoff | June 18, 2008 1:28 AM
That turd colbert has certainly turned ignorance into an art form. Was that xtian comedy? Might have worked if he was a comedian.
Posted by: RT NZ | June 18, 2008 2:02 AM
Unless you are even more egocentric than the character Corbert is playing then don't make statements like this if you don't want the answer. Some people here think the show is a brilliant parody of the right-wing talk shows.
Why do you assume I don't want the answer? Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I do.
If you can't stand him, it doesn't make anyone else's opinion less valid, especially on the subjective matter. Don't take the show seriously, it's on the comedy channel, not C-Span.
So if I don't know something, it means I make other people's opinions less valid? Shit, I don't how or why people believe in obvious nonsense like homeopathy, ESP, zombie jews, and stuff like that too. Colbert is to me just another one of those things I don't understand.
Get a grip.
Posted by: lostn | June 18, 2008 3:08 AM
You put yourself in a position where you ask for an explanation then deride the explanation when it comes. That's just pathetic.
Posted by: Kel | June 18, 2008 3:19 AM
Steven Sullivan@74 As the clueless Brit in question, I might have realised Colbert was supposed to be a comedian if I had seen or heard anything funny.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 18, 2008 4:04 AM
Nick Gotts,
lostn, RT NZ, and Steven Sullivan may be morons/trolls, but do at least watch a few full episodes of the Colbert Report online at Comedy Central before you pass final judgment. It's funny. Very funny.
Posted by: SC | June 18, 2008 4:21 AM
Have to admit I don't watch Colbert much.
However, it can be hard for someone not acquainted with his style to think he's being an obnoxious jerk when in fact his jerkiness is a sham.
Sometimes I wish people communicated using checksums. . .
Posted by: DLC | June 18, 2008 5:00 AM
SC@86,
RT NZ and lostn seem to agree with me! I'm only very slightly offended by Steven Sullivan's assumption that anyone who is not familiar with a particular US TV show (I'd guess this might apply to RT NZ as well) is "clueless" - just standard OWHITUSAC syndrome. I'm quite prepared to believe Colbert is funny, if you are familiar with what he's satirising - but oddly enough, as a leftist Brit, I don't watch right-wing US talk shows! I don't in fact have access to Comedy Central, though I guess I could do if I paid for it. I do wonder, though, what proportion of Colbert's audience watch him as just another right-wing talk show. There used to be a UK sitcom called "Till death us do part", of which the central character was a grotesque bigot called Alf Garnett. The writer, Johnny Speight, intended Garnett to be laughed at, but it became clear that many of the audience were laughing with him. I think Garnett was trans-Atlanticised as Archie Bunker.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 18, 2008 5:20 AM
Well, I'm a Brit and I still watch and enjoy the Colbert Report (admittedly, I find the satire funny because I'm also very familiar with shows such as the O'Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes).
I enjoyed this segment very much and agreed with virtually everything Professor Miller said, especially towards the end where he explained how the Bible is a spiritual guide not a textbook of science, and trying to treat Genesis as a scientific theory is both bad science and bad religion.
Posted by: Walton | June 18, 2008 5:59 AM
Steven Sullivan,
And what kind of little research is necessary ? I've watched Colbert about 20 or 30 times, is that sufficient ? You think I don't know who Colbert is, what he does, his style, how could I have forgotten his keynote at the White House Correspondent's dinner, and Bush's reaction ?
It's always the same thing, if someone makes a comment that you don't like, assume he is ignorant.
Still, you do not answer my question, actually nobody answered my question, did Miller mean the things he said ?
- regarding science as the enemy would be downright "anti-american"
- america has become the "greatest scientific nation in the world" because it didn't allow for any governement interference
- americans have this great quality that scientists have, the ability to disregard what the establishment says : "a culture of disrespect"
So, please read my comments 49, 53, 57 and see if you care to come up with an opinion, instead of tacitly assuming that I'm ignorant about Colbert.
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 18, 2008 9:03 AM