Lisa Simpson Gets Arrested

Hah! That should be a hoot. One of my all-time favorite lines from that show is from the Stephen J. Gould/Lisa finds an "angel" episode:

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things"...Ned Flanders.

So exquisitely evocative of IDiots and Cretinists

"Well, some say being thoughtful is old fashioned. If so, then I guess I'm just a caveman. If they existed. Which they didn't."

What? Behe didn't get a cameo?

I'm shocked!

Apu:"Shiva H. Krishna"

Using The Simpson's is NOT a good way of teaching evolution to the masses. It's way too smart for us.

There is of course the episode where Homer gets his hand stuck in the toaster and travels back millions of years to the time of the dinosaurs subsequently wiping them all out with the common cold ! When he returns to the present everything is altered and he has to keep going back in order to correct things. Needless to say he never quite gets things absolutely correct.

I'm surprised the YECers haven't been up in arms about this one (indoctrinating our children with millions of years etc. !)

All I can say is "Doh"

http://www.answers.com/topic/treehouse-of-horror-v

My two favorite moments from the Lisa finds an angel episode:

Moe gets trampled by the rampaging mob, and he is paralyzed. He says, "My only hope is that medical science can save me."

The rampaging mob burns the Christian Science Reading Room.

I can't wait to see what's on tonight!

The Satanic Verses (Junior Illustrated Edition), Salman Rushdie
?!!LSHMAFO Brilliant.

I think the Simpsons are a little dated. It isn't the evolutionist teacher that is being dragged into court and having their job threatened all to silence their position... its the teacher who treats Darwin's theory as just a theory as opposed to a dogma. Take Roger DeHart, a high school teacher, who lost his job because he dared to bring into his classroom articles in The American Biology Teacher and by Stephan J. Gould that used current data to criticize aspects of Darwinism.

Darwin's theory is 150 years old and dated. Genetics and biology and other disciplines have called it into serious question.

Scientists who are not religious with prestigious credentials and from prestigious schools have and are questioning Darwin's theory. A theory that flies in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

A one page ad using very small type was published in the National Book Review squeezing 100 scientists and their degrees and positions (Yale, Princeton, MIT, Lawrence Livermore Labs, etc.) onto to counter a denigrating claim that no "real" scientist is a detractor from Darwinism. Many of the greatest scientists of all history haven't believed in evolution and naturalism both ideas of which predate Darwin's works.

Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, Maxwell, Morse, and many many others in the past and thousands of contemporary scientists who a irreligious and religious have problems with Darwinism. Darwinism is no-longer pure as there are dissenting factions like the Neo-Darwinists.

Stop already with the denigrating those who are detractors. There are many legitimate arguments against Darwin's theory. If the theory is correct why not let it stand the test of criticism instead of trying to silence all dissention. Only a flawed theory/proposition has to fear honest criticism.

I challenge those who are full of angst to watch Privileged Planet and Icons of Evolution and Unlocking the Mystery of Life. Read the dissenting works NOT just editorials critical of the works. I remember doing an independent study in college on The Bell Curve, a book, which, at that time, stirred up a maelstrom of controversy. I was chatting with some professors among which was a department head during some awards events or some such happening and they were disparaging the book and the authors (both prestigious and Herrnstein a Harvard professor). I finally asked whether they had read the book and their response was that they hadn't, BUT they had read the reviews. I guess that qualified them to discount the authors. I hope you will take the time to at least watch a couple of videos like those mentioned or listen to a debate. Since I debated in high school, when my college Biology professor offered extra credit to those who went to a debate I jumped at the opportunity. I was stunned at what transpired. The detractor from evolution wiped the mat with the proponent. This sent me on a search which changed my mind. I encourage you to open your mind and search it out too. If Darwinism is accurate truth then you have nothing to fear and if you are afraid, doesn't that speak volumes about your confidence in Darwinism and whether you should be so strident about it? I hope you will enjoy the search and the repartee as much as I have and do. Have a wonderful journey!

Oh look, a troll!

Robert's irrefutable points have converted me. Praise Jesus!

whoa, robert ... you should spend some time reading this site before you post. then you wouldn't.

Robert, I'm not going to address your laughable ideas like evolution violating the SLoT. Instead, I just want to know, where did you come from? How did you hear about us?

so let me get this straight, newton and kepler, both of whom died long before origin of species was published, disagreed with it???

Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, Maxwell, Morse, and many many others in the past and thousands of contemporary scientists who a irreligious and religious have problems with Darwinism. Darwinism is no-longer pure as there are dissenting factions like the Neo-Darwinists.

Maybe Robert meant A. Richard Newton of Berkeley. LOL.

I like to call Robert's posts the "No Fact Zone", but I think S. Colbert already has a copyright on that one.

I think that Robert is simply an elaborate sarcastic ruse, designed to put you off your game and confuse you for the real attack.

Isn't that right Robert or should I call you...CONFUSATRON!!!!

Robert, I'm not going to address your laughable ideas like evolution violating the SLoT. Instead, I just want to know, where did you come from? How did you hear about us?

I reckon he's from Answers in Genesis !

Scientists who are not religious with prestigious credentials and from prestigious schools have and are questioning Darwin's theory.

Robert's post is not bad as a who's-who of dumb creationist claims, tho he failed to mention that Darwin recanted on his death bed.

Yeah yeah, Darwin recanted on his death bed. You hear that so many times from creationists. So what? How scared would you be on your death bed if in those so very religious times you had spent your later years hearing from everyone you knew that you would burn eternally in hell? Maybe if he had doubts on his theory he would have recanted far earlier, not as he lay dying with the fear of god directly in front of his eyes. Fear of death will get a lot of people to do a lot of things.

Darwin,recant,deathbed?
Sounds like a rather large propaganda fib to me.
From what I have heard he died at least an Agnostic and probably an Atheist. "Not that there is anything wrong with that" as the saying goes.
Which is why the Fundies are saying "Being an Xtian Fundamentalist is like being the new Gay" pathetic.

Darwin,recant,deathbed? Sounds like a rather large propaganda fib to me. From what I have heard he died at least an Agnostic and probably an Atheist. "Not that there is anything wrong with that" as the saying goes.

Which is why the Fundies are saying "Being an Xtian Fundamentalist is like being the new Gay" pathetic.

I think the Simpsons are a little dated. It isn't the evolutionist teacher that is being dragged into court and having their job threatened all to silence their position... its the teacher who treats Darwin's theory as just a theory as opposed to a dogma. Take Roger DeHart, a high school teacher, who lost his job because he dared to bring into his classroom articles in The American Biology Teacher and by Stephan J. Gould that used current data to criticize aspects of Darwinism.

— Robert Nowell

Yeah yeah, Darwin recanted on his death bed. You hear that so many times from creationists. So what? How scared would you be on your death bed if in those so very religious times you had spent your later years hearing from everyone you knew that you would burn eternally in hell?

— Ryan

Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, Maxwell, Morse, and many many others in the past and thousands of contemporary scientists who a irreligious and religious have problems with Darwinism.

Darwinism is no-longer pure as there are dissenting factions like the Neo-Darwinists.

Which is why the Fundies are saying "Being an Xtian Fundamentalist is like being the new Gay" pathetic.

— k.e.

Comment #100749 Posted by Robert Nowell on May 14, 2006 09:53 AM (e) I think the Simpsons are a little dated. It isn't the evolutionist teacher that is being dragged into court and having their job threatened all to silence their position... its the teacher who treats Darwin's theory as just a theory as opposed to a dogma. Take Roger DeHart, a high school teacher, who lost his job because he dared to bring into his classroom articles in The American Biology Teacher and by Stephan J. Gould that used current data to criticize aspects of Darwinism.

Darwin's theory is 150 years old and dated. Genetics and biology and other disciplines have called it into serious question.

Scientists who are not religious with prestigious credentials and from prestigious schools have and are questioning Darwin's theory. A theory that flies in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

A one page ad using very small type was published in the National Book Review squeezing 100 scientists and their degrees and positions (Yale, Princeton, MIT, Lawrence Livermore Labs, etc.) onto to counter a denigrating claim that no "real" scientist is a detractor from Darwinism. Many of the greatest scientists of all history haven't believed in evolution and naturalism both ideas of which predate Darwin's works.

Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, Maxwell, Morse, and many many others in the past and thousands of contemporary scientists who a irreligious and religious have problems with Darwinism. Darwinism is no-longer pure as there are dissenting factions like the Neo-Darwinists.

Stop already with the denigrating those who are detractors. There are many legitimate arguments against Darwin's theory. If the theory is correct why not let it stand the test of criticism instead of trying to silence all dissension. Only a flawed theory/proposition has to fear honest criticism.

blah, blah, blah... I encourage you to open your mind and search it out too.

Why Robert, thank you! That was a very concise, well written summary of recent (and ancient) creationist propaganda, neatly copied from several creationist sources. I couldn't have done better myself. I do find it useful for underscoring that no matter how many times these, tired, old, lame arguments have been refuted, there will always be large numbers of folks who are willing to swallow their dose of propaganda to cure the malignant assault of ruthless facts against their particular faith.

And yes, Robert, I have read and seen those things (as have most people on this blog). They are utter dreck. If you want to troll, why don't you try to come up with something twisted and distorted in a NEW way.

DeHart's troubles began in 1998, when parents became aware that for 12 years, DeHart had been omitting certain chapters in the assigned biology text and substituting creationist, etc., materials into the lesson plan. DeHart resigned his post and took up a position teaching "earth science" in nearby Marysville.

Stop already with the denigrating those who are detractors. There are many legitimate arguments against Darwin's theory. If the theory is correct why not let it stand the test of criticism instead of trying to silence all dissention. Only a flawed theory/proposition has to fear honest criticism.

SLoT and biological evolution: I encourage reading "Into the Cool".

Take Roger DeHart, a high school teacher, who lost his job because he dared to bring into his classroom articles in The American Biology Teacher and by Stephan J. Gould that used current data to criticize aspects of Darwinism.

Jan 21, 2000 It is learned that in 1999 DeHart did not present an evolutionary response to "Irreducible Complexity" in 1999 class as he was directed to do by VanderVeen.

The following graphic is a scan of a test given by Roger DeHart to a student in his biology class. The topic is on the showing of the film, "Inherit The Wind". The student's name has been blacked out. Notice DeHart's comment on the student's answer to question number 11: "Interesting. Your belief sounds biggoted [sic]." "

Comment #100774 Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 14, 2006 12:29 PM (e) I bet when he started teaching 'earth science', I bet he omitted all mention of plate tectonics. And I bet we don't even want to know how he 'explained' the Grand Canyon.

Well, Robert, I did watch "Privileged Planet" and it was a load of crap--factually challenged and neglecting to present the prevailing information that counters much of what it presented. It was slick, with swell special effects, but empty of insight. The Simpsons generally evinces a far greater understanding of the natural world than did PP.

Darwinism is no-longer pure as there are dissenting factions like the Neo-Darwinists

If Darwinism is accurate truth then you have nothing to fear and if you are afraid, doesn't that speak volumes about your confidence in Darwinism and whether you should be so strident about it?

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah Bell Curve

— Robert Nowell

The following graphic is a scan of a test given by Roger DeHart to a student in his biology class. The topic is on the showing of the film, "Inherit The Wind". The student's name has been blacked out. Notice DeHart's comment on the student's answer to question number 11: "Interesting. Your belief sounds biggoted [sic]."

Our troll has a point. Creationists aren't trying to ban evolution from the classroom anymore, though I have no doubt they'd do it if they could. Instead they're trying to introduce pseudoscience alongside it. The Simpsons, however, are only satirizing the former, which is a bit dated, I must admit.

I wonder what South Park will do with ID? They're usually much better at keeping up with current events.

so let me get this straight, newton and kepler, both of whom died long before origin of species was published, disagreed with it???

I gotta give Robert credit for his post.
It's hard getting internet access for a shack up on the mountains. I'd invite him over for dinner but I doubt my tin cans can communicate that far over the string to give him the message. But should he get the word from this post, Robert, please make sure you pass by the cabbage patch down the road. I hear my son was created there yesterday and I haven't been by to pick him up yet. If you can't find the house, look for the ravine created by the great flood. You can't miss it. We're right next door to the end of the planet. Try not to drive too far or you'll fall off the end.

MYOB'
.

Best ... Episode ... Ever!

Funny episode, but I was disappointed that they only brought Creationism into the picture and weren't quite topical enough to mention Intelligent Design. Granted it's only a 30 minute show, minus commercials, but it's still disappointing to leave the ID crowd with the obvious out of "b...b...but we're not Creationism! We're not! Really!"

Still got a great crack out of [paraphrasing from memory]:

"We want to teach alternatives to Darwinian evolution!"
"You mean like Lamarckian evolution?"

As an electrical engineer that hasn't taken a Biology course since the 8th grade, I would have just furrowed my brow at that one were it not for my hours spent lurking here. I owe someone here a beer for that chortle.

Great episode!

Using the song "What a Fool Believes" by The Doobie Brothers as background music for the creationism exhibit in the museum was absolutely Priceless!

Scientists who are not religious with prestigious credentials and from prestigious schools have and are questioning Darwin's theory. A theory that flies in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

— Robert Nowell

There's an Update with some post-show comments. - Dave

"I have a PhD in Truthology from Christian Tech" mmmmmm...Damn, that's good parody.

First, thanks to Robert Nowell for placing a small but significant reality check on this Simpson thing.

(The PT reaction to his post was entirely predictable, but c'est la vie.)

Fact is, in America today, there are no Lisa Simpsons getting arrested for teaching evolution in school. There are no laws outlawing the teaching of evolution in public school. None, nada.

Robert's right: the Simpsons are a little dated there. (A good 81 years' worth, it would seem).

Hence, the episode's basic premise is clearly shown to be a flat-out strawman with no basis in current reality. (Again, entirely predictable, mmm.)

But, no worries mate; nor any whine and cheese. Strictly hakuna matata on this one.

After all, despite the strawman factor and the obvious biases, the fact remains that Matt Groening and Company have done their part to keep the origins debate on the front burner of public discussion.

Which is kinda neat, because such TV exposure will help continue to generate public interest in the origins debate; and thus it will encourage further opportunities for Non-Darwinists to discuss the way things ~really~ are with Joe and Jane Public.

Planting seeds one person at a time: one mind, one heart, one life at a time, as Robert's post so well demonstrated. Of such are Paradigm Shifts birthed.
With that in mind...

Thanks Matt!

FL

Fact is, in America today, there are no Lisa Simpsons getting arrested for teaching evolution in school. There are no laws outlawing the teaching of evolution in public school. None, nada.

Planting seeds one person at a time: one mind, one heart, one life at a time, as Robert's post so well demonstrated.

FL, an unrepentant liar and certified idiot (why is he still allowed to post here? are all liars welcome or just the self-identifying Christian kind?)

After all, despite the strawman factor and the obvious biases, the fact remains that Matt Groening and Company have done their part to keep the origins debate on the front burner of public discussion.

Ahahahahahha!!! I sometimes forgot the lengths to which religious cultists will go to delude themselves.

What's on the front burner, FL, is not the "origins debate." It's the debate over just how stupid and how dishonest are those creationist peddlers and those willfully ignorant Christian liars??

My own answer to those "burning" questions, which I'm happy to support with reams of facts: incredibley stupid and fetid sack-of-shxt dishonest, respectively. For a quick taste of the sort of facts available to support my conclusion, please see every comment thread here in which FL has posted.

Here's a question that I'd like the liars and the Distoogery Institute to answer: Why doesn't the Distoogery Institute encourage the rubes to whom they preach to boycott all the businesses who advertise on FOX TV on Sundays?

I can assure that if there was an equivalent series of TV shows which mocked rational thought to the degree which FOX TV programs mock Christian Pseudoscientic Garbage(TM), there'd be a massive outcry.

So what's the problem, Distoogery Institute?? Cat got your tongue? Chicken shxt? Afraid to test the waters? Or are y'all still busy cleaning up the mess after Dover???

BWHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!

I wrote: "incredibley stupid."

A mistake.

I meant to say: "insanely stupid."

Hey, did anyone else think that character who was the PhD in Truthology from Christian Tech looked sort of like Dembski? Maybe I was just hoping for an ID connection somewhere.

I thought that the Family Guy was better tonight.

"Robert, ... I just want to know, where did you come from?"

I imagine Robert's first answer is, "Not from no monkey!"

A theory that flies in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

If the theory is correct why not let it stand the test of criticism instead of trying to silence all dissention...

Peter Henderson said: "I reckon he's from Answers in Genesis!"

Actually not, if he bothers to read their site. He is using arguments that even THEY know to discourage their disciples from using. ("Second Law" and "Darwin recanted", for example).

Hey FL, if ID isn't creationism, then why does DI's Wedge Document list, as one of its "Five Year Objectives", having "mainstream Christian churches" "defend" "traditional doctrine of creation"?

It's a simple question, FL. Why do you keep avoiding it?

Has DI's Ministry of Propaganda started whining yet, now that they've been made fun of in a, uh, cartoon show?

I particularly liked how Marge read Lisa's copy of "Origin of Species" and said "Thank you for opening my mind!" I suspect this was done on purpose--a parody of the many instances in Chick tracts where a character who is some awful sinner reads a tract or is told "God loves you" and undergoes an immediate religious experience.

such TV exposure will help continue to generate public interest in the origins debate; and thus it will encourage further opportunities for Non-Darwinists to discuss the way things ~really~ are with Joe and Jane Public.

— FL

Planting seeds one person at a time: one mind, one heart, one life at a time, as Robert's post so well demonstrated. Of such are Paradigm Shifts birthed.

the Simpson's episode's basic premise is clearly shown to be a flat-out strawman with no basis in current reality. (Again, entirely predictable, mmm.)

Fact is, in America today, there are no Lisa Simpsons getting arrested for teaching evolution in school.

I think the business about the creationism/evolution "debate" is pretty half baked. It is self interested, media-hyped, a smoke screen and a lame apologia for the right wing robbers who get tax cuts and double oil prices when their man gets elected by chicanery and by appealing to the left hand side of the bell curve in this country. People are right when they say that issue should have gone in the annals as a footnote to a silly idea taken somewhat seriously after the Scopes trial showed that stupid people and ideas sometimes win too, taken to new heights by our new version of Boss Tweed, which the idiot electorate of the USA elected X 2 to the presidencey. Beam me up Scotty!

I think the business about the creationism/evolution "debate" is pretty half baked. It is self interested, media-hyped, a smoke screen and a lame apologia for the right wing robbers who get tax cuts and double oil prices when their man gets elected by chicanery and by appealing to the left hand side of the bell curve in this benighted country. People are right when they say that issue should have gone in the annals as a footnote to a silly idea taken somewhat seriously after the Scopes trial showed that stupid people and ideas sometimes win too, taken to new heights by our new version of Boss Tweed, which the idiot electorate of the USA elected X 2 to the presidencey. Beam me up Scotty!

Buffoon Robert Nowell on May 14, 2006 09:53 AM (e) Posted;
I think the Simpsons are a little dated. It isn't the evolutionist teacher that is being dragged into court and having their job threatened all to silence their position... its the teacher who treats Darwin's theory as just a theory as opposed to a dogma. Take Roger DeHart, a high school teacher, who lost his job because he dared to bring into his classroom articles in The American Biology Teacher and by Stephan J. Gould that used current data to criticize aspects of Darwinism.

Darwin's theory is 150 years old and dated. Genetics and biology and other disciplines have called it into serious question...Blah Blah Blah.....
Rehashing old Creatist garbage. Man at least try to find something new and different. Troll, find a hole and crawl back to it.

FL wrote:
"the episode's basic premise is clearly shown to be a flat-out straw man with no basis in current reality."

The Simpsons is in the business of taking an overly-general, stereotypical character or situation and making a bunch of jokes about it. So, in this case, the "basic premise" of the show was that there are some well funded, anti-evolution cranks in America trying to get laws passed and curricula changed while ignoring rational thought and scientific facts. That certainly is not a straw man.

The Simpsons is not in the business of building a full legal or philosophical argument for or against specific positions, so you completely miss the point when you imply that they somehow failed to do so.

As for trolls such as Robert Nowell, FL, et al.
It is certainly annoying that they keep posting the same tired nonsense, but it is at least encouraging that the nonsense is exactly the same over and over. That way, we can take the Lenny strategy and use our "cuts and pastes" to quickly and easily counter their "cuts and pastes". That's a lot easier than doing research.

This all just confirms that the whole ID phenomenon has finally played itself out as far as it can. The are no further intellectual cul de sacs to explore or legal strategies to exploit. It's over.

The are no further intellectual cul de sacs to explore or legal strategies to exploit. It's over.

Fact is, in America today, there are no Lisa Simpsons getting arrested for teaching evolution in school. There are no laws outlawing the teaching of evolution in public school. None, nada.

Hence, the episode's basic premise is clearly shown to be a flat-out strawman with no basis in current reality. (Again, entirely predictable, mmm.) But, no worries mate; nor any whine and cheese. Strictly hakuna matata on this one.

After all, despite the strawman factor and the obvious biases, the fact remains that Matt Groening and Company have done their part to keep the origins debate on the front burner of public discussion. Which is kinda neat, because such TV exposure will help continue to generate public interest in the origins debate; and thus it will encourage further opportunities for Non-Darwinists to discuss the way things ~really~ are with Joe and Jane Public.

Planting seeds one person at a time: one mind, one heart, one life at a time, as Robert's post so well demonstrated. Of such are Paradigm Shifts birthed. With that in mind... Thanks Matt!

This from AIG:

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

I don't think they're too happy ! Has anyone any idea when this episode will be shown in the UK ?

There are no laws outlawing the teaching of evolution in public school. None, nada.

No, just a lot of inbred wingnuts circling our public schools, ready to stamp out any idea they don't like, regardless of what the law says; and a lot of spineless school officials eager to bend over every which way at once at the wingnuts' behest, regardless of what the law says.

I think the Simpsons are a little dated. It isn't the evolutionist teacher that is being dragged into court and having their job threatened all to silence their position... its the teacher who treats Darwin's theory as just a theory as opposed to a dogma. Take Roger DeHart, a high school teacher, who lost his job because he dared to bring into his classroom articles in The American Biology Teacher and by Stephan J. Gould that used current data to criticize aspects of Darwinism.

Darwin's theory is 150 years old and dated.

Genetics and biology and other disciplines have called it into serious question.

Scientists who are not religious with prestigious credentials and from prestigious schools have and are questioning Darwin's theory.

A theory that flies in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, Maxwell, Morse, and many many others in the past and thousands of contemporary scientists who a irreligious and religious have problems with Darwinism.

Darwinism is no-longer pure as there are dissenting factions like the Neo-Darwinists.

Stop already with the denigrating those who are detractors. There are many legitimate arguments against Darwin's theory.

If the theory is correct why not let it stand the test of criticism instead of trying to silence all dissention. Only a flawed theory/proposition has to fear honest criticism.

I challenge those who are full of angst to watch Privileged Planet and Icons of Evolution and Unlocking the Mystery of Life.

Since I debated in high school, when my college Biology professor offered extra credit to those who went to a debate I jumped at the opportunity. I was stunned at what transpired. The detractor from evolution wiped the mat with the proponent. This sent me on a search which changed my mind. I encourage you to open your mind and search it out too. If Darwinism is accurate truth then you have nothing to fear and if you are afraid, doesn't that speak volumes about your confidence in Darwinism and whether you should be so strident about it? I hope you will enjoy the search and the repartee as much as I have and do. Have a wonderful journey.

From Peter's AiG link:
"The popular, long-running TV program 'The Simpsons'...continued its satirical look at the institution of the family with an episode that aired, ironically enough, on Mother's Day."

I like how they brought "the institution of the family" in to the mix. That always wins rhetoric points with their fans. Plus, as they point out, the show was on Mother's Day, no less! The producers were really rubbing salt in the wound with that choice! How ironic! Oh wait...Isn't Mother's Day always on a Sunday? And don't The Simpsons always air on Sundays? Hhmmm, I guess it was inevitable that the two would overlap at some point.

Homer (in uppity, Sherlock Holmesian tone) "So, Mr. Malloy, it seems that the cat has been caught by the very person who was trying to catch him!"

Skinner: "How ironic."

I believe Aristotle, Arrhenius and King Tut were also opponents of Darwin's theory. Praise Jeezus!

Praise Jeezus!

Heh heh,,,,

A little googling turned up this gem of a review written by a Robert Nowell (presumably the same Nowell as our hit-n-run troll) over at amazon.com (emphasis added):

While completing my BA in Psychology at Cal State Fullerton I had an independent study the focus of which was the newly released book, The Bell Curve. I was amazed at the anger stirred up by the book. Even more amazing was the fact that when I talked to individuals (including a department head) about it and asked them if they had read it, they usually replied no but asured me they had read the reviews which they deemed sufficed to condemn it.

.....

The whole idea of valuing people on the basis of intelligence and Darwin's debunked theory of evolution with its corollary of the survival of the fittest and the filter or strainer of natural selection is flawed. Instead... we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.... jesus is greater and kinder and more inclusive than Natural Selection an unscientific theory that has always promoted racism and discrimmination(sic)... Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. didn't quote Darwin but he did quote the Declaration and the Bible, Jesus Christ. You decide which system is more beneficial to mankind... hard unforgiving debunked Darwinism or merciful, kind, loving Christianity.

speaking of the big J, didn't he also come out against Darwin? Loaves...fishes...moneylenders...meek... hmm, can't quite recall now, but I'm sure it's there somewhere.

While completing my BA in Psychology at Cal State Fullerton

The whole idea of valuing people on the basis of intelligence and Darwin's debunked theory of evolution with its corollary of the survival of the fittest and the filter or strainer of natural selection is flawed.

While completing my BA in Psychology at Cal State Fullerton I had an independent study the focus of which was the newly released book, The Bell Curve. I was amazed at the anger stirred up by the book....The whole idea of valuing people on the basis of intelligence and Darwin's debunked theory of evolution with its corollary of the survival of the fittest and the filter or strainer of natural selection is flawed.

The thrust of H&M's argument has no racial intent. They are focused upon the evidence that genetics is anywhere from 40%-60% the determinate of intelligence. That intelligence is a filter of the university system which collects all the most intelligent at the best universities. These intellectual elite end up being the controllers of our society through their positions in business and education and government. They in turn inter-marry and have above average intelligent babies which follow their same path and become the rulers of their generation. All of these elite live in a diff world from Joe & Jane avg thus the gulf btwn the have and have nots widens. Society is stratified and "classed" on the basis of intelligence (the genetic 40-60% continually refined. They feel a return to the principles of the Declaration and our founding fathers is critical to the preservation of our nation and free and independent.

Troll, find a hole and crawl back to it.

From A.I.G. today "it does show that the popular culture is acknowledging the creation/evolution debate to be a major part of today's culture wars.... ....then this popular TV show can be considered a useful sociological barometer of what the culture is considering during a particular period of time."

No doubt it's 'somewhere in the back', as Timothy Lovejoy once said.

He seems to be saying that we need a Christian nation so that the smart people won't take over

Marge: But Reverend, doesn't the bible say that's wrong? Lovejoy: Marge, the bible says a lot of things.

Marge, have you ever actually read this thing? Technically, we're not allowed to go to the bathroom.

I don't know about the rest of you, (and I haven't gotten to read all of the comments yet) but it seemed to me like there was a lot of tongue-in-cheek stuff in that episode. Lisa referred to evolution as "the one truth" and constantly cited Darwin and The Origin of Species in a manner quite similar to how people reference the Bible; Marge was "converted" to evolutionism after picking up the Origin of Species and reading it; and there was the part where Lisa read selections from the Origin of Species to a classroom of onlookers, much like a preacher. I didn't care for that. It seemed a lot like the show was almost trying to establish evolutionism as a kind of faith. It's not, and it shouldn't be treated like one.

Don't get me wrong, though. I do believe very whole-heartedly in evolution and I am opposed to creationism, but the way this episode portrayed the debate was extremely shallow. I realize there's only so much you can do with a 30 minute timespan, but it sure looked like the premise of the episode was just to capitalize on a hot-button issue.

No doubt it's 'somewhere in the back', as Timothy Lovejoy once said. I think Homer said that.

Has anyone any idea when this episode will be shown in the UK ?

but the way this episode portrayed the debate was extremely shallow. I realize there's only so much you can do with a 30 minute timespan, but it sure looked like the premise of the episode was just to capitalize on a hot-button issue.

Wait, so The Bell Curve is worthwhile and people shouldn't condemn it, but valuing people on the basis of intelligence is bad? Don't those conflict with each other a bit? Or is Mr. Nowell saying that it's a proven fact that white people and Asians are naturally smarter than black people, therefore we need to value people in a way that doesn't take into account how smart you are? A sort of racism-driven political correctness? Very confusing.

— Anton Mates

Society is stratified and "classed" on the basis of intelligence (the genetic 40-60% continually refined. They feel a return to the principles of the Declaration and our founding fathers is critical to the preservation of our nation and free and independent.

Wow. Just wow. Does anyone remember the name "Diana Moon Glampers?" This guy is repeating, in all seriousness, Kurt Vonnegut's old joke about "equality" being enforced by putting masks on the most beautiful people, weights on the strongest and most athletic, gags on the smartest and most articulate, and, in general, punishing anyone who makes anyone else feel the least bit inadequate. There was even a hotline for people to report smart-asses to the "equality police."

It was SATIRE, you fool!

but the way this episode portrayed the debate was extremely shallow. I realize there's only so much you can do with a 30 minute timespan, but it sure looked like the premise of the episode was just to capitalize on a hot-button issue.

It's just a cartoon, folks. It's not a science lecture or a socio-political symposium.

Maybe, but you'd be surprised how many people base their moral judgments on what they see on the Simpsons...

Homer: Bart, you know that guy on your lunchbox? Bart: Oh, you mean Krusty the Clown? Homer: He's sort of a hero of yours, isn't he? Bart: Are you kidding? He's my idol! I've based my life on Krusty's teachings!

No doubt it's 'somewhere in the back', as Timothy Lovejoy once said.

The whole idea of valuing people on the basis of intelligence and Darwin's debunked theory of evolution with its corollary of the survival of the fittest and the filter or strainer of natural selection is flawed. Instead... we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights....

— Robert Nowell via Amazon.com

> Darwin's theory is 150 years old and dated.

That's because it's a real scientific theory. If it was simply dogma presented as science, like "Intelligent Design", it would have remained unchanged by a century and a half of discoveries in genetics, radiochemistry, geology, paleontology, microbiogy, space physics, and so on.

A little googling turned up this gem of a review written by a Robert Nowell (presumably the same Nowell as our hit-n-run troll)....

— caerbannog

the first Nowell

I think the Lovejoy quote is from the episode where Bart is suspected of stealing from the church. Lisa holds a speak in the church where she asks if the Bible does not say "Judge not, lest you be judged" and Lovejoy concedes that it might be "somewhere in the back".