Now on ScienceBlogs: An uncomfortable question
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
But even with these conservative assumptions, the time taken to evolve a fish eye from fiat skin was minuscule: fewer than 400,000 generations. For the kinds of small animals we are talking about, we can assume one generation per year, so it seems that it would take less than half a million years to evolve a good camera eye.
Richard Dawkins
« Really? This guy is conscious? | Main | Happy Anniversary, Origin…some good news »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
Category: Creationism • Pointless polls
Posted on: November 24, 2009 5:37 PM, by PZ Myers
So Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort showed up at UCLA to hand out their vandalized editions of the Origin, and Kirk got caught on video (with horrible sound and video quality, unfortunately) getting rhetorically bitch-slapped in an argument with a UCLA student. Be proud, California universities, you're doing a fine job.
This particular story has a poll attached to it. Here's the entirety of the poll and its results.
Kirk Cameron -- Master Debator?
Yes 100%
Good work.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/125447
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
Tim Lambert 02.01.2012
Orac 01.14.2012
Orac 02.07.2012
ERV 11.26.2011
Orac 01.20.2012
Comments
Posted by: Jason Febery | November 24, 2009 5:45 PM
He got absolutely destroyed. I'm very proud of the girl in the video. She made him look like a whiny schoolboy. Kudos to her.
--
http://jasonfebery.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/not-just-a-theory/
Posted by: Andre | November 24, 2009 5:45 PM
Rarely have I had such violent thoughts as those I harbour toward that goddamn trumpet player.
Posted by: hedrick | November 24, 2009 5:48 PM
Second-hand embarrassment makes this hard to watch. Then again, I could say the same of any conversation with a creationist.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 24, 2009 5:49 PM
Beavis and Butthead live in that poll question!
And don't get me wrong, I think it's an entirely appropriate response to the childish nonsense of Comfort and Cameron.
Really, that bullshit about how Darwin was out to get rid of god is the pathetic tripe that we expect from such ignoramuses. Not that I care if he specifically wanted to be rid of god or not, the point being that many want to get rid of god so that the honest questions of, say, origins may be asked.
Darwin wanted to explain biogeography, taxonomy, and the odd solutions that life has sometimes come up with to problems. That such a basically simple explanation has explained so much for so long indicates that using science works in a way that relying on "revelation" never has.
Poor dumb Kirk, he's about the same uneducated f-up that he played on TV.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: F
|
November 24, 2009 5:51 PM
Oh my, how embarrassing.
"They used Darwin in order to do it."
I hate them, with their Black Helicopters, teaching atheism in the classroom.
Posted by: MorboKat | November 24, 2009 5:51 PM
My tiny crap speakers play nothing but rumbles and a trumpet player (poor trumpet player... he/she meant well, but I could cheerfully strangle him/her).
Has anyone transcribed it?
Posted by: daveau
|
November 24, 2009 5:52 PM
Finally, a meaningful internet poll.
Posted by: Gene | November 24, 2009 5:52 PM
Kirk Cameron embarrasses himself
In other news, the sun rose this morning...
Posted by: Ashley F. Miller | November 24, 2009 5:53 PM
What is sadder, this video or the fact that his website is still all about Growing Pains?
In case you miss the theme song, make sure your volume isn't up too high: http://www.kirkcameron.com
Posted by: Lauren | November 24, 2009 5:54 PM
Did anyone see them handing out the books at any Canadian universities today? I go to University of Manitoba and didn't see them there.
Posted by: Dirty Hairy | November 24, 2009 5:55 PM
I can't wait to get home and see this. Well, that and Muppet Bohemian Rhapsody.
Posted by: Zeno | November 24, 2009 5:55 PM
Ha! About fifty seconds into the video the horn player in the background bursts out with the horn call from Wagner's Siegfried. You remember Siegfried? Anna Russell used to describe him as "very handsome, and very strong, and very stupid -- a regular Li'l Abner type." I don't know about the "strong" part, but Kirk Cameron's a good match for handsome and stupid part. And his scientific acumen is straight out of Dogpatch.
Intelligence is just bad stuff
Posted by: Alpinist | November 24, 2009 6:03 PM
"(poor trumpet player... he/she meant well, but I could cheerfully strangle him/her)."
That's gold, Jerry! GOLD!
And I SOO want to watch this (or even listen to it), but the abhorrent audio quality makes me want to stab something small and furry.
Posted by: NitricAcid | November 24, 2009 6:04 PM
Couldn't make out a word of what they were saying over the background noise. Any transcript?
Posted by: Mario Pineda-Krch | November 24, 2009 6:10 PM
Way to go..., I want her as my grad student...
Posted by: nejishiki | November 24, 2009 6:11 PM
Woooo! Go UCLA!
Posted by: The Nihilist | November 24, 2009 6:12 PM
Is there anywhere we can find that vid?
Paul
- www.nihilistology.wordpress.com
Posted by: wrpd | November 24, 2009 6:20 PM
I always thought it was inaccurate to describe the Kirster as a former child actor. A former child might be more accurate, but even that is not accurate.
Posted by: Alessa Mendes | November 24, 2009 6:21 PM
This was great! Good for her. I don't think I would've been as patient. She doesn't even come across as condescending.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | November 24, 2009 6:31 PM
Master of the 1-eyed snake. Oh, waitaminnit - DEbator, not bator. My bad.Posted by: Brian Wren
|
November 24, 2009 6:54 PM
I graduated from USC so I'm really not supposed to praise our rivals from across town. In this case though, I'm going to make an exception. Way to go Bruins!!
Posted by: Laurie | November 24, 2009 6:54 PM
One of my friends in high school had pictures of Kirk Cameron plastered on every square centimeter of her bedroom walls. She is now horrified at the fact that she wasted so much of her adolescence drooling over a complete and utter moron.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 24, 2009 7:03 PM
The audio was so poor I couldn't hear any of the discussion.
I'll hold your coat.
Posted by: Akiko | November 24, 2009 7:10 PM
What a goofball. He is so brainwashed by the cult that got him off drugs he doesnt know what to say without their script. No individual thoughts, they lead to sin!
Posted by: Andrew T | November 24, 2009 7:11 PM
The sound quality is pretty horrible all right, but at 1 minute into the video I could swear I hear Kirk say "I used to be an atheist...."
Whaaaaaaat??
Posted by: pdiff
|
November 24, 2009 7:16 PM
Good take down, but if you are wondering why clowns like this are still around, try reading the comments. It will take all the joy of the video away :(
Posted by: Anders from Sweden | November 24, 2009 7:34 PM
Ouch! If he had been a normal person such pwnage would hurt, but he is not. He's to blind to understand his war is lost and is history.
Reminds me of those poor japaneese soldiers hiding and fighting in the jungle years after the WWII was over.
I wonder what would happen if someone physically showed him the evidence? Would the rest of his central nervesystem melt down (the frontal parts are long gone and just the basic parts remains)? Poor boy.
Posted by: Irk | November 24, 2009 7:35 PM
Lauren #10:
They weren't at UBC as far as I know, which surprised me given there was a lecture by Carl Zimmer on the same day. However, I have seen a few of Comfort's Follies hanging around so perhaps I missed them.
Posted by: Dorkman | November 24, 2009 7:45 PM
Since I'm a UCLA alum I had some school pride, and wanted to make sure the dear girl's efforts were not in vain. So I've transcribed the interview for your reading pleasure. (As I'm also a screenwriter, it was also good practice for if I ever want to do something in Mamet's style.)
This is the best understanding I could get listening over and over. Some parts might be wrong and if they are it's human error, but I think the gist comes across.
She's obviously not someone who makes a habit of combatting creationism, so I think she made a fine showing.
---------------
Female Student: [Unintelligible] saying, "Origin of the Species! Go evolution!" So, when somebody --
Kirk: [Unintelligible]
FS: Yeah, you did, I heard you. And I was like, "What? Kirk Cameron's believes in evolution?" Are you being ironic or --?
Kirk: No, I didn't say "go evolution," I took a picture and I said "Everyone say 'Darwin'!" And I said "Darwin!"
FS: Oh, okay.
Kirk: I did say that.
FS: Okay. I'm sorry. But that's not important. Anyways, so when a passerby is getting that book, and they don't know about you, they haven't seen your videos, and they don't know who you are, they think, "Oh, okay, this is the book," so when they read it, they're not aware that the information is coming from a group that has a special interest in dissuading people from evolution.
Kirk: Okay. Okay, fair enough.
FS: It's like hidden propaganda. Which you, like -- atheists groups would never, like, hand out the Bible saying, like, "This is not true and this is all the scientific information" --
Male Student 1: I think you could have been more honest if [unintelligible].
Kirk: (to Female Student) Can I respond to what you're saying?
Cameraman: (to MS1) Say it louder.
MS1: I think it would have been more honest you had just distributed the introduction by itself --
Kirk: I -- I heard you earlier. (to FS) So, here's my thought. I used to be -- used to be an atheist, and studied evolution, and the Darwinian, the Neo-Darwinian [unintelligible], to the point where I'm, I'm convinced that it is not science, that Darwinism is atheism masquerading as science. That's --
FS: Darwin wasn't an atheist, actually. He was really hesitant to publish his work because he knew that it would go against the beliefs of, you know, the church.
Cameraman: And I kind of feel that's undermining the faith of people who do accept evolution and who are Christian.
Kirk: (ignoring Cameraman, to FS) Well, why do you believe that?
FS: Because he has journals and because, like, you know, he took a long time -- it wasn't 'til Wallace said, like, "Hey, check this out!" and he's like "Oh, boy," you know, "I should probably publish what I'm doing."
Kirk: Okay, have you heard... Okay. Here's, here's, here's the other important...um...(lengthy pause) I believe that Darwin was absolutely...that the end game was to make God...was to remove God from...the, the worldview of... I think that that was his end game. Um. And if you read -- I don't know if you've read the introduction in here, yet.
FS: No, I have not yet. But I will.
Kirk: You'll find things you maybe haven't read before.
FS: I probably have never read what you wrote, no.
Kirk: In my, my... I think that it is...very, uh... dishonest, and extremely --
Trumpet: "When The Saints Go Marching In"
Kirk: -- for, for...for teachers, in the name of science, to push an atheistic worldview. Which -- and they use Darwin in order to do it.
FS: I don't understand how... you're combining atheism -- because not all scientists are atheists, like, I would not say I'm an atheist.
Kirk: Yes, alright, but --
FS: But I, I, I...
Male Student 2: Francis Collins.
FS: Yeah.
Cameraman: I bet he knows about that.
FS: I don' t understand [unintelligible]. Why is science an atheistic endeavor? I don't understand that.
Kirk: Okay, let me --
FS: I don't understand the problem.
Kirk: Why is science an atheistic endeavor?
FS: Yeah, and why is -- particularly, um --
Kirk: You have to ask [unintelligible] of atheism being taught in the science classes to answer that question. I mean, look at Dawkins, for instance, look at Dawkins --
FS: I love Dawkins.
Kirk: ...okay, so --
FS: But other science --
Kirk: But if you look at those who are the loudest proponents for, uh, Darwinism, and evolution, you'll find that they are absolutely on the mission to demonstrate that God is irrelevant and doesn't exist. And they're atheists.
FS: What Dawkins argues is that God and science should not be in the same argument, because science is based on evidence, whereas religion is based on faith. And so --
Kirk: So is Darw --
FS: They don't explain...
Kirk: But Darwinism is extremely based on faith, not on evidence.
FS: Not really, it's based on a lot of evidence. He made, he made assertions that were based on faith, he didn't have evidence for yet, but he had a lot of evidence. Later on now, scientists are, you know, doing research. And in fact, current scientific thought doesn't accept, uh, plain Darwinian evolution. In fact now, there's like a lot of different, uh...
Cameraman: It expanded over the years.
Kirk: Sure.
FS: It expanded, so --
Cameraman: Especially with genetics and that sort of thing.
FS: Yeah. So Darwin was the basis, but it is not, uh, what actual evolutionary biologists, you know, uh... go with. And in science, there's no like "Okay, this is the FINAL ABSOLUTE TRUTH," it's always changing because --
Kirk: Correct.
FS: You know, all the evidence either against it, or that should show different things.
Kirk: So, what... so, what -- I understand that -- so, so I'm pro-science, I love science.
FS: Why not this specific branch of it? Because --
Kirk: Which branch are you referring to?
FS: I'm referring to biology.
Kirk: I love biology.
FS: Except the part where it says that -- do you believe in micro-evolution?
Kirk: Are we talking about, um, adaptation?
FS: Yeah, that's why you get a different vaccine every year because --
Kirk: Yes.
FS: -- you know -- okay.
Kirk: Yes, but to extrapolate that into speciation and macro-evolution by saying it takes lots of time --
FS: No, not if you accept, not if you accept that it does take -- okay, so if you believe in micro-evolution, you believe that it continues happening, it just doesn't happen in like, two minutes and then it's done, it continues happening. The Earth is not six thousand years old, and even if it were six thousand years old, in that span of time, continuous micro-evolution would have added up to something, right? Even if you believe the literal Biblical, uh, idea that the Earth is not old, it would've still added up. Not to what we have here...
Kirk: Do, do you -- I understand what you're saying, [unintelligible] I think that they do change over time, but we don't, but we don't see speciation as a result of adaptation. We don't see --
FS: Because we don't have enough time. And in fact they are --
Kirk: Okay, but you have to, but you then have to concede, though, that that's a presupposition that you're assuming that it happened, even though we don't have enough time to observe it.
FS: Well, it's not -- it's because of geological evidence. What happens in science, is you bring different branches of knowledge together, and it's not, it's not isolated. You don't just say, like, "Okay, biology proves it." Because biology doesn't prove anything. There's evidence that there's a biological process, but combining that with geology, physics, and --
MS2: Astronomy.
FS: Other sciences -- astronomy, yeah.
MS2: They all agree.
FS: Then you, you combine that knowledge, right? And that's how you think, like, "Okay, if this is happening now, and if we know that the Earth has been, you know, this old and this, like, many changes have happened" -- all of this knowledge, then you -- it, it is a safe, logical assumption to make that conclusion. For instance say, like, "Micro-evolution has been happening for this long, and it's added up." Whereas with, uh, a belief in a certain faith, particularly in this case the, the Christian persuasion, all the evidence that you have is based on the Bible, and that would be circular logic, because you think, "I believe in the Bible because the Bible says it's written by God." (draws a circle in the air) It doesn't -- there's no outside body of evidence, there, there's no conjecture --
Kirk: That's not true.
FS: What other body --
Kirk; History, geology, cosmology, biology...
FS: So, okay, so history --
Cameraman: Do you mind if I ask you a question about geology, really quick?
Kirk: Hang on a second.
Cameraman: Okay, sure.
FS: How does history disprove evolution?
Kirk: How does history disprove evolution?
FS: Yes.
Kirk: Well, I didn't say history disproves evolution, I said that history --
FS: Okay. Then give me another line of evidence other than the Bible that disproves evolution.
Kirk: Um, I would say evolution disproves -- D, Dar -- I would -- (pauses) Evolution, talking about, we're talking about speciation, I would say that, that...that Darwin's theory, nor -- and ANY theory -- does not sufficiently, uh, account for speciation, apart from the existence of God. You don't find the fossil record, you don't find --
FS: Okay, what about the difference between bonobos and chimpanzees? Which are very similarly related, they just have --
Kirk: I'm not familiar with, what?
FS: Okay, bonobos are essentially chimpanzees, except they're smaller, and they're more, uh, friendly with each other. Whereas chimpanzees are, like, very aggressive --
[END OF VIDEO]
Posted by: Art | November 24, 2009 7:51 PM
IMHO the problem with Comfort's version of the book, with the unfortunate and fallacious introduction added, is easily corrected with a razor blade. While I am reticent to advocate surgery for any reason on a book, particularly when it is to remove some portion I disagree with, in this case the book is complete and intact, as intended by its author, without the added introduction. So removal of the introduction is not so much mutilation of a book as excision of a tumor that debilitates an otherwise functional organism.
Posted by: Bribase | November 24, 2009 7:55 PM
"They used Darwin in order to do it."
I love it when creationists fall back on conspiracy theories when they realise they've got nothing left to argue with. It's the final transparent fortress of the man with no mind.
So who are "they" exactly Kirk?
Its all a giant conspiracy that's been engineered by a group of powerful people who aren't white Christian men. You
know, the ones that really have all of the power.
Believe in creationism...
Believe the conspiracy...
Believe in Morlocks!
B
Posted by: nejishiki | November 24, 2009 8:02 PM
The creationists - all of them, and especially the likes of Cameron and Comfort - would do well to remember Ralph Waldo Emerson's advice: "When you strike at a King, you must kill him." Nothing less than the most complete scientific thrashing of Evolution by Natural Selection is going to make any difference in the long run. Picking around the edges, challenging minor tenets of the theory, etc. will do nothing in the end if they can't come up with a non-trivial theory that explains the same sets of data better and leads to interesting research. As it stands, the King is very much alive, and there isn't even a credible pretender to the throne.
Posted by: SmartLX | November 24, 2009 8:19 PM
Thanks so much for the transcript, Dorkman. I really wasn't looking forward to spending eight minutes visibly wincing.
Posted by: Deiloh | November 24, 2009 8:50 PM
Good transcript. Thanx Dorkman! Clearly, Kirk didn't prepare. Although, I've listened to his prepared stuff and it isn't much better...
Posted by: Techskeptic
|
November 24, 2009 8:51 PM
Dorkman,
you are awesome
Posted by: echidna
|
November 24, 2009 8:59 PM
Thanks for the transcript.
Kirk looks foolish, not because he is unprepared, but because his whole argument boils down to:
"Evolution threatens my belief in God in some way. My belief in God is paramount, so evolution must be wrong."
When he is among people who believe this baseless assertion too, they will support him, so he thinks it's ok.
Posted by: Bribase | November 24, 2009 9:00 PM
Art
sorry to tell you but Ray's folly is missing quite a few chapters:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/10/30/how-creationist-origin-distorts-darwin.html
The most important chapter is on biogeography. Personally, even before genetics, phylogeny and paleontology this was an enormously convincing argument for evolution, it explains so much about the distribution of species across the earth. Too convincing for Ray I'm afraid.
In honesty, although I'm very happy to have celebrated Darwin's birthday and anniversary of the origin's publication this year, it still feels like a total straw man on Comfort's part. We've all heard a thing or to about some extra evidence for evolution crop up over the last 150 odd years!
We should all be celebrating this book of Darwin's theory but when Ray Comfort uses a butchered version of it to look like our best evidence makes Darwin look like Joseph Smith, evolution a faith claim and the 'origin' our book of Mormon.
B
Posted by: Jason Crane | The Jazz Session | November 24, 2009 9:01 PM
At the very beginning of the video, the trumpeter is playing Herbie Hancock's "Chameleon." There's definitely a good natural selection joke happening there.
Posted by: RagingBullwinkle
|
November 24, 2009 9:03 PM
Idea for screenplay: Mega Shark, Giant Octopus and Bigfoot vs. Kirk Cameron.
Posted by: No_Unicorns | November 24, 2009 9:06 PM
Lauren@10
I was told they'd been at Dalhousie - LAST WEEK.
Last Wednesday (18th), I took a stroll around the Dalhousie campus around lunch time - saw nothing. Did the same on Thursday and found a couple of folks outside the Library with a large sign reding "Are You A Good Person?" in large, friendly and brightly coloured letters. There was a lively debate going on with the word "authority" much bandied about.
When that broke off, I asked if they were associated with the Living Waters Ministry. "No, but we know about them." Did they have any of the Comfort versions of "Origins"? No - they had been distributed on Wednesday! Would I like one? Not badly enough to give my name and contact info, thank you.
It may be unrelated, but Armand Leroi gave a talk on Wednesday night. Perhaps they thought that would be a target-rich environment, but I don't know if they were there or not.
Posted by: Joe | November 24, 2009 9:07 PM
Hey all I'm the one who took the video and yeah sorry that it was so crappy, I took it on my phone. Thanks to Dorkman for transcribing this, that is freaking hardcore.
What I love about UCLA is that I go to these events thinking I'm gonna have a lot of people disagreeing with the crazy guy and they'll be the only ones asking questions and such. But so far every Intelligent Design, anti-evo like event has mostly kids devastating these disingenuous jerkfaces.
I like that these videos have finally ended the rivalry between UCLA and USC :p
-Joe
Posted by: Techskeptic
|
November 24, 2009 9:14 PM
Joe?
Who was the AWESOME woman who put him to task? If you know her PLEASE give her a pat on the back for just being all around awesome.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
November 24, 2009 9:20 PM
Since you really can't call this abortion "The Origin of Species," by Charles Darwin, how about we call it "The Origin of Feces," by Ray Comfort and his, um, companion.
Posted by: Joe | November 24, 2009 9:20 PM
@TS
Yeah she did an absurdly awesome job, she is someone who is a member of the skeptics club at UCLA:
www.bruinskeptics.org
I am updating her on her pure awesomeness so don't worry about that!
Posted by: Anthony | November 24, 2009 9:28 PM
FYI
Article on this in today's salon.com
http://www.salon.com/books/creationism/index.html?story=/books/feature/2009/11/23/origin_into_schools
Also I wish to say thanks, everybody, Dr. Myers and dedicated posters, for the constant entertainment and education.
Posted by: Crocoduck | November 24, 2009 10:04 PM
Bravo, young woman! I especially admire your civility and restraint in the face of all that stupidity. If it were my daughter in your place, she would have tried to cold-cock Pretty Boy long before the end of the clip.
Posted by: Laurie | November 24, 2009 10:13 PM
Kirk Cameron: You'll find things [in my introduction] you maybe have never read before.
Female student: I have probably never read what you wrote, no.
Bwahahaha! The whole exchange was excellent but I especially enjoyed this exchange. It was subtle but this woman totally punctured the arrogance and presumption implicit in Cameron's statement. Beautiful!
I also appreciated how she kept patiently bringing him back to the notion of evidence whenever he tried to challenge why she would "believe" in a particular proposition, whether about evolution or Darwin's life.
Posted by: stptrck75 | November 24, 2009 10:14 PM
Every time Kirk and Ray get backed into a logical wall of their own shoddy construction, they just cry
"speciation! Show me speciation without the Holy Spirit!".
Pathetic and tiresome.
Posted by: Raguel | November 24, 2009 10:37 PM
It's funny that here Kirk says there's no evidence of speciation, but in Tf00t's video, Ray is forced to agree speciation happens. They should get their stories straight.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | November 24, 2009 11:14 PM
They can have the speciation of mosquitoes in the London Underground into a new species that is reluctant to breed with the parent species and less interested in birds as a target.
They could have the various species or subspecies of foxes on the Channel Islands off the coast of California.
They can have the birds of the Hawaiian islands, all pollinating different kinds of flowers.
They can have the insects of the Hawaiian islands, species that developed, uniquely without the need to protect themselves from ants that are present everywhere less isolated. The exotic ants that arrived with people are devastating them.
They can have the unique species of sticklebacks that developed in meromictic lakes, like Pink Lake in Quebec, left when they were isolated from the sea.
They can have the cave critters all over the world that are related to the surface critters instead of being one perfect-for-caves creation.
Posted by: rich lawler | November 24, 2009 11:17 PM
It's funny, on Kirk Cameron's website it says he starred in Fireproof, the "number 1 independent film of 2008" but when you click on that link, the actual logo on film's banner says "the number 1 inspirational movie of the year." I then tried to google the "best independent film of 2008" and golly gee, no film by Kirk Cameron showed up.
Kirk my boy...there's a huge difference between the best "inspirational" film and best "independent" film.
Apart from distorting basic scientific facts, he even resorts to distorting on his own weak-ass cinematic accomplishments. So pathetic yet so expected.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 24, 2009 11:21 PM
Rick Schroder is way cooler.
Posted by: ur349q5bq95vq26789 | November 24, 2009 11:40 PM
I like how many people are complaining about there not being a 'No' option in the poll on that page. Way to miss the joke, dumbasses.
Posted by: Timothy Vogel | November 25, 2009 12:17 AM
I always breathe a sigh of relief when engaging the specific creationists and intelligent-design proponents who haven't even learned enough not to discredit evolution for it's inability to explain abiogenesis.
When they do, the argument is over. As with Cameron in his ludicrous YouTube video (replete with Hitler's love of eugenics as an argument against Darwin's seminal work 50 years prior to Hitler's birth), once you admit you don't know what evolution claims it is rhetorically impossible to claim you have proof against it.
So, they inevitably fault evolution for not explaining how life began. Recall, Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species", not Miller's "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions" and Miller-Urey's "Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth". Whenever engaging these types I suggest you wait for this argument, since it always gets trotted out when dealing with true cretins and is almost always the last argument they can make before you end the argument with Science and they start damning you to hell.
Without an intiial "breath of life", the subsequent processes are moot as even inductively entertaining discussion points.
Try it sometime. Wait for them to trot out the rope that hangs them. Count on it for they are predictable to a fault. Hardly smart on our part, it is simple probability. Their arguments are always the same, limited by both time and intellect in both scope and number, and by their own definition no new evidence can be brought forth to defend their own point of view.
Not once in 20 years of arguing with these people did a new line of reasoning arise until ID recently reared its ugly head. One new rhetorical trick in over 150 years of carping instead of doing their own "research" and all they can cook-up is "intelligent design"?
The same argument as creationism with a new coat of paint (you must assume creation to prove creation, you must assume design to prove design)?
Rock on, PZ Meyers.
TV
Posted by: DisGRUNTled | November 25, 2009 12:19 AM
Is she single? If so I'll gladly marry her.
Posted by: Sam | November 25, 2009 1:44 AM
@ #51 rich lawler - Actually, it was the highest grossing independent feature film in 2008, it pulled in around 50 million all told. Don't get me wrong, I think Kirk Cameron is a twat, but we don't need even more misinformation here.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
November 25, 2009 4:37 AM
What a complete nob 'ead 'capt kirk really is!
Not a clue, completely addled and pompous to boot.
Hanging around bananaman can do that.
Totally vacuous and just parroting terms he has not an inkling about, just heard from other like challenged butt heads or bananaman in chief.
Actually it is a perfect demonstration on the fundamentalist vocal xian that likes to hear the effluent from the likes of Hovind and Cumfart but have no idea about what they actually spout.
It sounds like it 'supports' their delusional concept and if jeebus droppings are laid at regular intervals during the diatribe then it cannot be wrong cos the bible say's so!
There is not one creationist with an ounce of suss about that which they disparage.
There is never an alternative scientific mechanism and never ever is evidence reinterpreted in a logical way.
Even ID the so called scientific alternative is twaddle to the nth....not even worthy of consideration.
Nope it always boils down to a smug 'godwhatwentandgoneanddidit' because, and simply because, they are completely sodding intellectually, educationally and emotionally vacant to the point of absolute vacuum.
Besides the main 'argument' is never the structure or form of Evolutionary Theory.
And it is never about the central tenets except in a cursory fashion to add a modicum of 'intellectual' depth to their hatchet jobs.
And that cursory nod to terms evolution is only present to impress the other clones that think the speaker possesses a deep and analytical mind.
It fools no one with a decent education and a mind free from dogmatic poison.
And furthermore simply because they do not understand it, they always and without fail head straight for personality and their own invented intent of Darwin.
They feel much more comfortable with personal character assassination then stuck on the shifting sands of actual scientific knowledge.
So easy to attack a dead man, then make up stories about him, cos they are little 'bahbee' jeebus heroes that can lie with impunity and pride in their allusion of being blessed by righteousness.
Then after whipping up a frenzy of manufactured antipathy they always pull out their trusty trump card...
'Fear' in the form of a society dominated by NAZIism.
And Eugenics, Atheism, Communism, Socialism, Homosexuality, Abortion rights, and intolerance of xians praisin' said 'bahbee' jeebus and in fact all manner of utter bilge to frighten folks, because when all is said and done fear is, and always has been, the control in all religious indoctrination.
Kirk obviously has not got a brain cell worth educating, being in the main rotted by a life of vanity and arrogance and twisted by ignorance and stupidity.
And some folks think this inanity has to be respected?
Life is far to short to give this bollocks any protection from derision or condemnation for being what it is...just utter and complete fucking worthless trash.
Posted by: not a gator | November 25, 2009 4:45 AM
My friends and I watched Fireproof and were just astonished at the jaw-dropping stupidity and backwardness. The protagonist is a selfish ass who berates and abuses his wife because she dares to complain about his boat-purchasing plans while one of her parents is very sick. The cure to this problem is not human empathy, but Jesus. After he cures his online porn addiction, he decides to "win his wife back" and so reluctantly gives up his boat plan to curry favor with her. Gag me with a spoon.
We were actually pleasantly surprised when the one Black guy in the movie *doesn't* die tragically but is actually saved from near death by Jesus and then actually witnesses or whatever to the protagonist. So they've evolved to the "some of my best friends are Black people/Black people like me" stage of race relations, you know, circa 1969. (What am I saying, late 60's TV was more racially nuanced than that.)
Cameron is actually a passable actor but most of the other people sucked. Also, I think it was his IRL wife because as a Christian he can't kiss some other woman. Hahahaha, what a d-bag.
Oh, and lest you get the idea from the summary that it's NOT horribly sexist and misogynist, there's the whole storyline with protagonist's father convincing him to try Jesus ... gah, can't even go into that. AWFUL. (The father looks like one of those guys cast for RE or snooty wine or erectile dysfunction ads, the real successful looking full-head-of-hair Aryan type.)
Posted by: MorboKat | November 25, 2009 4:55 AM
Thank you, Dorkman @29!
Now I don't have to hunt down the trumpet player. That saves me a trip AND possible jail time. Win!
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
November 25, 2009 4:57 AM
#58
"Cameron is actually a passable actor"
They always say the best acting is in a roll that echoes the real life personality of the actor, it is called characterization empathy!
Posted by: Richard Healy
|
November 25, 2009 6:16 AM
Re: the horrible sound.
Did a brass band and a helicopter fleet pass through, repeatedly?
Thanks for the transcript. Much needed!!
Posted by: Steve in Dublin | November 25, 2009 8:19 AM
@pdiff
Yeah. Depressingly, and even more depressingly because it's representative of today's youth, more than 50% of the posters over there on TMZ are trotting out the typical lyin' for jebus schtick.
The Kirk dude gets like totally pwned, and there they are, treating it like a good thing. He's being persecuted for his religious beliefs. We're just never gonna hear the end of this 'I believe in god therefore evolution must be wrong' claptrap. Not in our time, anyway :-( Doesn't mean we won't keep fighting the godbots every step of the way though.
Posted by: franz dibbler | November 25, 2009 9:03 AM
The trumpet player was making better sense. Epic delayed success Kirk (to protect his feelings).
Posted by: monyNH | November 25, 2009 9:22 AM
WOW! Am I glad you posted this. My husband works at Dartmouth, and some nice fellow was there handing out copies of (and I'm copying directly from the front cover) Origin of the Species: 150th Anniversary Edition [by] Charles Darwin; Special Introduction by Ray Comfort. Not knowing--or remembering--who Comfort is, I'm just thinking how nice it was for someone to commemorate Darwin's birthday. Yikes! Now, I'm flipping through the introduction and feeling like I've let a terrorist into my home. This damn thing is going straight out to the trash! I'd burn it, but the librarian in me just can't go there.
Worst of all, though, I feel like a frickin' idiot.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 25, 2009 9:44 AM
1. Let's not refer to this man as "Capt. Kirk", Mmmkay? James Tiberious Kirk is possibly the coolest man who never lived. I would take a bat'leth wound to my upper groin for that man. Kirk Cameron is real and the opposite of cool. No two men could be more different than these two.
2. I am left wondering what actual magik Kerk* Cameron has. When I was a child he was a teenager. I now have grey hair and a failing memory, whilst Kerk remans cerubic. I'm calling bullshit on this one...Kerk is no disciple of Jesus, but clearly a level 8 necromancer**.
*I find this orthographic variant pleasing. It distinguishes the fictional awesome (JTK) from the real human-paraquat (Kerk Cameron*).
*Self-referential ala David Foster Wallace.
**At least level 8. Possibly more powerful than Ray Comfort, Himself!
Posted by: Jean-François | November 25, 2009 9:52 AM
Brilliant!
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
November 25, 2009 9:56 AM
Further to the title: Kirk Cameron kinda embarrasses me, now that you mention it...
No, it's not that I've really any connection to the man--think I saw his show exactly once, and thought it was kinda sucky*, otherwise have nothing invested whatsoever--it's just sorta on principle.
As in: there are members of our species that are that lame. It's sorta embarrassing to the rest of us, really...
(*/Funny, possibly not coincidental thing: the episode I saw struck me as pretty obnoxious... as I remember, his character was in this brief relationship with this really unsympathetically written 'pretentious poetess' character, dumped her at the end of the episode to go bowling with his family... The whole vibe/message struck me as being just: 'arty/literary people are pretentious jerks who'll just diss your suburban family as bein' all melba toast and boring...' Not that his weren't, pretty much, now that you mention it... And like I said, it was obnoxious stuff, no thank you. There was a certain none-too vague anti-intellectualism about it, thinking about it now, that annoyed me even then... Can't help wondering if maybe he had some influence on the writing, there...)
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
November 25, 2009 10:32 AM
#65
"1. Let's not refer to this man as "Capt. Kirk", Mmmkay?"
Ahh!...yeah but!... no but! ...yeah but!
I spelt the moniker with a lower case C...i.e (c)
Because I also consider James T as a veritable giant among Capitanos everywhere.
The epiphet was to indicate more 'space cadet' rather then 'space Captain'
That is my excuse...I stand by it!
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 25, 2009 10:45 AM
#68...Too nuanced, Strangest Brew. There are children reading this blog. Let's set a good fucking example.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
November 25, 2009 11:03 AM
#69
'There are children reading this blog. Let's set a good fucking example.'
Fuck me sideways... ye has a point!
Children do not take any sodding notice of the bollocks & bullshite thrown up by IDiots and Cretinists and sundry liars for jeebus!...it leads to language abuse!
And that will not be fucking tolerated!
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 25, 2009 11:11 AM
Strangest--
Ha!
Posted by: rich lawler | November 25, 2009 11:39 AM
Sam, good to know. I stand corrected!
Posted by: Lilith | November 25, 2009 12:22 PM
@ 56 - Sam:
The only reason Fireproof made so much money is that it was featured on Oprah.
And I'm really embarrassed that I know that.
I only watched a minute or two while channel-flipping, honest.
Posted by: NeoDarwinianSynthesis | November 25, 2009 1:25 PM
@Dorkman;
Great job! I think I managed to fill in ONE word (as opposed to your many):
Kirk: I -- I heard you earlier. (to FS) So, here's my thought. I used to be -- used to be an atheist, and studied evolution, and the Darwinian, the Neo-Darwinian SYNTHESIS, to the point where I'm, I'm convinced that it is not science, that Darwinism is atheism masquerading as science.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 25, 2009 1:32 PM
Funny... when thinking of Camoron, I never thought of "Capt. Kirk"... I always think of the "Kirk" guy from the late 80's sitcom "Dear John"... you know... the sleazy womanizer who pronounced his name with an over-emphasis on the first "K"... "Hey... my name is KKKKirk!"
Can't say Kirk Camoron's name now without using that inflection. It's reflexive at this point.
You may now all bathe in the warm light that is my obscure 80's sitcom knowledge.
Posted by: Mick | November 25, 2009 1:33 PM
NOBODY is more powerfull than Ray Comfort. He's got God on his side and ne NEVER forgets his holy symbol.
Posted by: ThurrtyPhiv | November 25, 2009 1:38 PM
Continuing the Fireproof discussion.. I read a review somewhere that basically said "Fireproof is the story of a man who needed divine intervention to stop being a jerk to his wife."
I sat through the entire movie and that pretty much sums it up. At one point, Kirk goes to his dad (or father-in-law, I don't remember) for advice on how to save his marriage, and the dad admits that he too was a total jerk to his wife but that Jesus cured his jerkedness.
Whatever happened to being nice to your spouse because you love them? It works for me...
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 25, 2009 1:40 PM
Oh... and yeah.. I heard him trot out The Great Lie also... ("I used to be an atheist"). We all know this is bullshit... and frankly there are only two options when a creotard makes this claim:
1: They are flat out willfully lying. More often the case than not.
2: They were ambivalent about god at some point, not giving it much thought either way, or were angry with god for the sad state of their life, and then had some mystical conversion, or were "saved" from some troubling life or set of circumstances. They were never actually atheists, to the point of logically reasoning out that based on the evidence, the existence of god is highly unlikely.
I think KKKKirk falls into category 2.
Posted by: sailor | November 25, 2009 2:05 PM
instead of master debator
cant we make that
master baiter?
Posted by: RagingBullwinkle
|
November 25, 2009 9:42 PM
Too bad the video cut short before you see where Kirk Cameron wets himself.
Posted by: RagingBullwinkle
|
November 25, 2009 9:45 PM
But you know who gives an oscar winning performance once a year?
His wife in bed.
Boo-yeah!!
Posted by: Terry | November 25, 2009 11:00 PM
crazy
Posted by: Jeffrey Robinson | November 27, 2009 11:28 AM
"Reminds me of those poor japaneese soldiers hiding and fighting in the jungle years after the WWII was over."
ouch.
Thanks for the transcript, Dorkman.
Posted by: d | November 28, 2009 3:00 AM
Ok as a UCLA science student here, I agree Cameron doesn't have the strongest argument but the girl sounds like, uh, you know, a dimwit herself....Just read the transcript or watch the video. Half the people on this board would admit this about the girl if they didn't have their bias of believing in evolution. So I have no idea why people are lauding her as the one who pwned and schooled Cameron.
If you want to attack Cameron for sounding like a fool, by all means, that is your prerogative. I'm just saying it's not like the girl he was arguing with sounded any more, like uh, yea you know... intelligent.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 28, 2009 3:07 AM
"Just read the transcript or watch the video."
I did read the transcript, and sure, she's no Dawkins, but she still ran rings around stammerin' Cameron.
"I agree Cameron doesn't have the strongest argument"
Understatement of the year, fella.
"Half the people on this board would admit this about the girl if they didn't have their bias of believing in evolution."
I agree, knowing that Cameron is full of shit does help.