Missed the Simpsons last night?

What was the "comment made in the first season", anyway?

I thought the episode was quite funny! Thanks for tipping me off.

What was the "comment made in the first season", anyway?

I was wondering that too! Maybe it refers to the old episode where Lisa called Homer a baboon?

As you most likely know, the Simpsons got their start as a segment of the Tracey Ullman Show.
en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/Tracey_Ullman
Tracey was smart enough to buy a piece of the production rights and as a result is today one of the richest entertainment figures in England.
Anyway, in the late 80's I was employed as a U.S. Customs Inspector at JFK airport. We got to meet many interesting people like Springsteen, Miles Davis, Jacques Cousteau and dozens of others. I've got a hundred stories and maybe someday I'll write a book!
Sure enough, one Sunday afternoon Tracey showed up. I told her that there were only two people I ever wanted to meet, her and Cher. She took the Customs declaration card and signed the back of it for me:

http://www.charliewagner.com/tracey001.jpg

"To Charlie, One down, Cher to go!, All the best, Tracey Ullman"

I never got to meet Cher. I found out later she was afraid to fly and rarely ever did.

Although I thought the episode was pretty funny, I did have a problem when Lisa was insisting that ONLY ONE can be taught, and for the obvious gag, they chose Creationism (I love that they didn't even bother to call it ID). She made the correct point at other times in the show, that Creationism isn't science, which is the main point, not that only one can be taught. If there really were two competing theories that were held in equal esteem by scientists, then by all means, teach them both.

If there really were two competing theories that were held in equal esteem by scientists, then by all means, teach them both.

Today, I considered doing a "Doggerel" entry on the word, "controversy". That particular hypothetical scenario would be just fine by me if it existed: There'd be genuine controversy to teach. There is, of course, no genuine controversy about ID: It's not science at all. All the shouting from the ID side is just whining.

I'm reminded of Behe(?) trying to redefine science to include ID, and that definition would require including Astrology as well. I have more respect (less disrespect?) for Astrology than ID. Astrology puts forth predictions. They're wrong, but at least they stepped up to plate. ID wants to play with the big boys, but doesn't want to step up to that same plate.

What was the "comment made in the first season", anyway?

There was an episode in the first season where the family went camping and Bart and Homer got lost. While they were lost, Homer was photographed and the picture was sold as 'Bigfoot' and/or 'The Missing Link'!

Thank you.

AIG responds:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0515simpsons.asp

(Quite smart of them not to rail against the episode, methinks.)

They described Lisa's objection (that religion should not be taught in schools, nor science in church) as 'tired'. As in, "I'm so tired of hearing that objection because there's no good answer to it".

My nomination for the mysterious first season comment is Bart's implying that Homer is a "kwyjibo": a a big, dumb, balding North American ape. With no chin.

From "Bart the Genius" -- the first regular episode after the Christmas special.

I like how there are so many "quotes" around simple "words" like that will magically cause them to be false.

I like the bit where they tell Skinner they want to teach the alternate theory to Darwinian Evolution and he says, "What? Lemarkian Evolution?"

As someone who rarely misses the Simpsons (but did so last night because I was moving) - Thanks PZ!

Even better was the episode of the "Family Guy" following the Simpsons, where Peter recounts some of the exploits of his predecessors. He explained how his family evolved from primative life forms into humans and then had a second version that ran immediately afterwards for folk in Kansas where people suddenly existed as is out of the "ether". I thought this was more cutting than the Simpsons episode which was not bad at all.

Here's another brilliant article from AiG:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v6/i2/creation.asp

Their simpson's response links to it. It supposedly explains WHY they are anti-evolution. Look at this quote:

"As we look around the world today, we see things happening which are disturbing and alarming to Christians, because they are largely unable to understand why they are happening. We see more and more marriages breaking up, people not bothering about marriage, an increase in homosexuality and lesbianism, families not functioning in the way they used to, children not coming or not being sent to Sunday School like they used to. There is a great increase in disrespect for authority, and lawlessness is ever on the rise."

Every time I talk to Christians about their politics, these are the reasons they love to cite. The trouble is, its all based on myth and hearsay. There are almost no statistics to back any of it up. Ask a Christian to actually substantiate their claims of "moral decay" or "culture of death" and you'll get a blank stare.

Crime has been on the decline for 14 years, and some economists and sociologists beleive abortion may actually be the cause of the decline.

Pentecostals, Episcopalians, Baptists, and Assemblies of God all have much higher divorce rates than atheists, who are among the lowest of religious groups.

Most researchers on gay and lesbian issues think that the "true" rate of homosexuality, if there is such a thing, has not changed in hundreds of years, it has stayed somewhere around 10%, the only difference is more people today are willing to admit it.

Sunday school rates have gone down, but from what I can tell this is mostly due to evangelical churches not bothering to offer any sunday school classes. They probably think it is too educational.

Moreover, the whole premise of the social conservative argument, that abstract theories and theologies exert powerful influences over human behavior, has been called seriously into question by much recent social research. For an excellent philosophical treatment of this topic download this paper here:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=816224

That was one of the funniest episodes of The Simpsons that I've seen in a long time, and it was timely too--nice. It definitely captured many of the subtleties of the evolution/creationism debate--from the creationists' slick lawyer and creation "scientist" to the much more boring real scientist who shoots himself in the foot. Sad but true.

I was pleasantly surprised by this episode. Lisa was on the right side, but what surprised me was Marge admitting that Darwin's ideas made a lot of sense. She's usually the one on the side of morality, and while I dreamed of an episode where the whole family agrees with Frink that God is reduced to insignificance, I thought the good guys did pretty well in twenty minutes of mass-culture televison.
It even had a few good laughs. "Was mommy a monkey?", "Lisa's the Ralph now!" and the guy with the PhD in truthology from Christian Tech all made me chuckle.

Ha! They burned you guys good! They perfectly captured your paranoid ravings about what the world would be like if evolution is questioned in schools: secret readings of the Origin of Species, police arrests, etc.

I'm surprised you clowns aren't complaining about Lisa's words at the end about respecting Ned Flanders' beliefs. How offensive that must be to you hate-filled anti-religious bigots. I'm sure you think it would've been better for her to say that Flanders was a moron and his beliefs were "dangerous" and "a blight upon the earth."

Ha! They burned you guys good! They perfectly captured your paranoid ravings about what the world would be like if evolution is questioned in schools: secret readings of the Origin of Species, police arrests, etc.

Jason, I don't think you've yet developed a good way of gauging the amount of authorial-to-narrative distance in something. But since, in addition to being socially retarded, you're evidently somewhat stupid to boot, I'll explain this to you. Lisa is a character that the writers have always used in a sympathetic manner. What happens to Lisa...

...you know what? I'm not going to sit here to explain the few nuances of an animated sitcom to a Ralph. You're just stupid Jason.

Either my sarcasmometer is malfunctioning, or Jason didn't bother to pay attention to anything typed here at Pharyngula.

Of course, the ideas people like Flanders produce are moronic, dangerous, and a blight upon the Earth, but that's a necessary evil aspect to the First Amendment: For free speech to exist, stupid speech has to be allowed.

Of course, there's little-to-no hate involved here. We're just calling fallacious ideas fallacious. A crime against logic is a crime against logic.

I'm surprised you clowns aren't complaining about Lisa's words at the end about respecting Ned Flanders' beliefs.

Because you know nothing about us. Try reading what we type, once in a while. Unlike fundies, the vast majority of us believe in freedom of speech and belief. That's just about all that's standing between us and a Spanish Inquisition.

And I can't help but mention that, yes, people have been arrested for attempting to teach evolution.

And others have been burned for saying the Earth isn't the center of the universe and such.

The closest we'll ever get to that sort of thing is posting a witty retort followed by someone saying "BURN!"

Wit isn't something I've come to expect from Jason. In fact, Jason has been praying very hard for God to "soften his personality". Since Jason is still here, and being stupid, I can only conclude that God has answered his prayers, but missed Jason's personality, and has softened his head instead.