Cosmos . . . Edited for Rednecks

Posted 4 March 2007 by Reed A. Cartwright

I have another observation in pop culture's war on ignorance. (Okay, that is an oxymoron.) On tonight's Family Guy, "Airpot '07", Peter attends "The Redneck Comedy Tour" and decides that he wants to become a redneck. So he buys a pick-up truck, puts the couch on the front lawn, and hits on his daughter. Then he sits down with Brian to watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

Scene: Brian and Peter are on the couch watching TV. Peter is wearing cowboy boots, jeans, large brass belt buckle, flannel shirt, and a green John Deere cap. TV Announcer: We now return to Carl Sagan's Cosmos . . . edited for rednecks. Sagan on TV (occasionally dubbed over by a redneck voice): I'm Carl Sagan. Just how old is our planet. Scientists believe its four b---hundreds and hundreds of years old---Scientists have determined that the universe was created by a---Goooooooood---Big Bang. If you look at the bones of a---Jesus--asaurus rex, it is clear by the use of carbon dating that---Mountain Dew is the best soda ever made. Brian: Peter, do we have to watch this? Peter: This is what rednecks watch, Brian. Peter takes a can of chewing tobacco from his shirt pocket and begins to dip.

Of course, carbon dating cannot be used on the fossils of a "Jesusasaurus rex"; other forms of radiometric dating with longer half-lifes have to be used. Update: Below the fold, I've posted the scene from YouTube. Thanks Chris Hyland.

48 Comments

Daryl Cobranchi · 5 March 2007

Of course, carbon dating cannot be used on the fossils of a "Jesusasaurus rex"

Sure they can. They're only a few thousand years old at most.

Popper's ghost · 5 March 2007

Sure they can. They're only a few thousand years old at most.

Um, the problem is that the words they've put in Sagan's mouth without the redneck editing are mistaken.

Chris Hyland · 5 March 2007

Link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cIkFMtiBN0A

realpc · 5 March 2007

In the evolution wars, neo-Darwinists are motivated more by a desire to separate themselves from Rednecks than from any desire to understand evolution.

"Brights" are enlightened, educated, wise, facilitators of civilization's progress. Rednecks are stupid, ignorant, belligerant obstacles to progress.

Brights wait impatiently for the day when all humans have been educated into neo-Darwinism and all the Redneck tribes have died out. Then we will have peace, universal health insurance, and cures for all diseases.

I agree with you that Christian Creationists are stubbornly stupid. But if every single person on earth were suddenly transformed into a neo-Darwinist atheist, civilization would remain just as chaotic and the great questions would remain just as unanswered.

Neo-Darwinists are wrong, and Christian Creationists are wrong. We will probably never completely understand evolution, but we could make progress if we could ignore the emotions and politics.

gwangung · 5 March 2007

In the evolution wars, neo-Darwinists are motivated more by a desire to separate themselves from Rednecks than from any desire to understand evolution.

You mis-spelled creationists there, son. Fits your behavior to a T.

Frank J · 5 March 2007

Neo-Darwinists are wrong, and Christian Creationists are wrong.
— realpc

Who do you think is closer to being right, a Christian "evolutionist" like Kenneth Miller or an agnostic IDer like David Berlinski?

pwe · 5 March 2007

You mis-spelled creationists there, son. Fits your behavior to a T.
— gwangung

Umm, I think that realpc was trying to be funny (but I might be wrong, of course). I suppose that realpc was referring primarily Richard Dawkins, who may be characterized in the way done, if you want to make satire. It's a matter of taste - I know some creationists that appear to be npt all that interlligent, and I know some creationists that can even make fun of their own creationism. There's a creationist world outside of AiG, ICR and CMI, you know. - pwe

pwe · 5 March 2007

And I can't spell either, I know :-)

realpc · 5 March 2007

Who do you think is closer to being right, a Christian "evolutionist" like Kenneth Miller or an agnostic IDer like David Berlinski?

I agree with agnostic IDers, which is why I am considered a pre-human Redneck Creationist here. And I have no problem with Christianity, when it isn't anti-science.

Anonymous_Coward · 5 March 2007

We will probably never completely understand evolution, but we could make progress if we could ignore the emotions and politics.

But if every single person on earth were suddenly transformed into a neo-Darwinist atheist...

I don't know. You kind of got quite a bit worked up over a lowbrow satirical cartoon. Seriously. How anyone can take a few seconds of video and then conclude it's some sort of "neo-darwinist atheist" campaign? I was going to have a jab at ghost up there for not having a sense of humour but then you came along. Your comment is just as ridiculous as other rednecks for taking a few seconds worth of visual comedy from Ice Age and turn it into some "liberal godless conspiracy to brainwash people".

Anonymous_Coward · 5 March 2007

I agree with agnostic IDers, which is why I am considered a pre-human Redneck Creationist here.

Maybe you have some issues with paranoia, but this thread wasn't made to specifically target you. And you added the "pre-human" and "redneck" qualifiers by yourself. Again, this thread was obviously lighthearted in nature. But you, the one who said not to let emotions get into the way, can't wait but to play the victim of "mean atheist neo-darwinist" over a few seconds of cartoon not directed at you.

Raging Bee · 5 March 2007

And I have no problem with Christianity, when it isn't anti-science.

So if a Christian does good science without resorting to "god-of-the-gaps" or "Goddidit" explanations, or vague "inferences" of "design," would you consider him/her "anti-science?"

ze · 5 March 2007

Have Christian IDists never considered this, teach intelligent design in churches and religious schools but keep it out of public schools. For "god's" sake, if churches were doing their job in church, they wouldn't have to demand public school teachers do it for them. I mean, Jewish kids traditionally go to religious education classes to get instruction in their faith that public schools leave out. Why can't Christians do the same? What's their problem?

MarkP · 5 March 2007

Realpc gratuitously asserted: We will probably never completely understand evolution, but we could make progress if we could ignore the emotions and politics.

Get the IDers to quite trying to turn science into a political, emotional gambit. Those of us concerning ourselves with the evidence are making very nice progress thank you.

Frank J · 5 March 2007

Have Christian IDists never considered this, teach intelligent design in churches and religious schools but keep it out of public schools.
— ze

Sure, but anti-evolution activists are more interested in pitching their propaganda in the media than in schools. In fact they mostly want public schools to go away. What better way than by dumbing down science education even more? Non-activist Christians and Jews do not want ID taught in religious schools or places of worship for the simple reason that it bears false witness.

J. Biggs · 5 March 2007

I think it would be more politically correct to call "Rednecks", those suffering from cervical erythema.

J. Biggs · 5 March 2007

Real waste of time writes: Neo-Darwinists are wrong, and Christian Creationists are wrong. We will probably never completely understand evolution, but we could make progress if we could ignore the emotions and politics.

And most of all you are wrong. Quit destroying threads with your inane babbling.

J. Biggs · 5 March 2007

Have Christian IDists never considered this, teach intelligent design in churches and religious schools but keep it out of public schools.

Now why would the fundies waste time teaching ID in church when what they really want to do is teach the literal interpretation of Genisis? While I agree with you that religion should be kept in church, the main goal of ID/Creationism is to make children of those who aren't biblical fundamentalists, a captive audience and have the ID/Creationist "Theistic science" presented by an authority figure.

normdoering · 5 March 2007

Raging Bee asked:

... if a Christian does good science without resorting to "god-of-the-gaps" or "Goddidit" explanations, or vague "inferences" of "design," would you consider him/her "anti-science?"

That depends. There are other things that Christians who are scientists do that annoy me. For example, censorship of other views which I may have experienced today. I wrote a review of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" here: http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/tv-review-lost-tomb-of-jesus.html One thing I liked was when, quoting my own blog:

"Mr. Jacobovichi also argued how his own evidence was better than that of an archeologist who believed that back in 1990 the tomb of the "Caiaphas" family had been discovered and that this tomb had the bones of the very "Joseph, son of Caiaphas" that was the Jewish high priest who organized the plot to kill Jesus. The Caiaphas who convinced the Sanhedrin that Jesus should die and was also involved in the trial of Jesus after his arrest in the garden of Gethsemane. If this Jesus isn't the Jesus of the New Testament, then why believe that their Caiaphas is the Caiaphas of the New Testament? Did anything in their tomb suggest any of that Caiaphas family had been high priests? Well, if that archeologist had anything it was edited out. It was a point that didn't boost Jacobovichi's own credibility but rather one that gave me less confidence in biblical archeology overall, which was pretty low to begin with."

I noted this over at Bruce Feiler's blog on HuffPo: Then I discovered, maybe, I'm getting censored at HuffPo: http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/censorship-at-huffpo.html Turns out, Bruce Feiler may have a stake in the Caiaphas claim.

Pizza Woman · 5 March 2007

Naow, if they edited Cosmo fo reyed-nehyucks, the-yun y'alled be talkin' ... !

k.e. · 5 March 2007

Naow, if they edited Cosmo fo reyed-nehyucks, the-yun y'alled be talkin' ... !

hyuck,hyuck waat du y'all call a lesbian hippopotamus ..alickalottopus ........haw haw

MarkP · 5 March 2007

You know, suddenly the difficulty creationists have grasping a varying genetic base becomes clear. It's beyond their personal family experience.

Cedric Katesby · 5 March 2007

Realpc,
You said in a previous thread...
"Yes Randi has debunked a lot of nonsense. There will never be a shortage of ridiculous paranormal claims. But he goes way beyond the data in saying no paranormal claims can possibly be valid."

When and where did Randi say this?
Either quote your source or admit you just made it up!

Popper's ghost · 5 March 2007

Neo-Darwinists are wrong, and Christian Creationists are wrong.

Ah, yes, realpc is the only one who is right -- despite being stupid and ignorant.

Popper's ghost · 5 March 2007

I was going to have a jab at ghost up there for not having a sense of humour but then you came along.

Pointing out a misunderstanding isn't incompatible with having a sense of humor. The Family Guy bit is funny, but Daryl simply missed Reed's point.

Anonymous_Coward · 5 March 2007

Pointing out a misunderstanding isn't incompatible with having a sense of humor. The Family Guy bit is funny, but Daryl simply missed Reed's point.

I'm not saying you don't get the Family Guy part of the humour. In fact, I'm quite sure you do. What Daryl was doing is continuing the humour aided by Reed's commentary. I'm not quite sure what the technical term for that is, but it's quite a common thing to do (what Daryl did). I think the technique is related to absurdist humour. It continues the absurd line of thought as if nothing else is out of the ordinary. I was a bit too general about senses of humour. You only lack certain senses ;)

BC · 6 March 2007

In the evolution wars, neo-Darwinists are motivated more by a desire to separate themselves from Rednecks than from any desire to understand evolution.

Only in your dreams, Charlie. I have a stack of books and reams of source code that says I've gone a long way towards understanding evolution. You, on the other hand, are a know-it-all who enjoys playing the role of iconoclast.

Popper's ghost · 6 March 2007

What Daryl was doing is continuing the humour aided by Reed's commentary.

No, he was missing Reed's point, just as I said. And, as was the case with realpc and complexity in another thread, you too missed the point. There, you accused me of making an irrelevant comment; here, you accuse me of failing to detect humor. In both cases, you are mistaken. I was quite aware that Daryl intended to say something funny; duh. But he missed the mark, because carbon dating is part of the unedited text attributed to Sagan, not part of the edited text addressed to rednecks, so the youngness of Jesusaurus isn't relevant because carbon dating referred to real dinosaurs, not to fake redneck YEC versions -- this is a point that is apparently quite beyond your comprehension. Making "carbon dating" part of the redneck-directed text actually would have been quite subtle humor, as it would reflect a common creationist misunderstanding of dating techniques, but it would have been far too subtle for the intended audience.

Popper's ghost · 6 March 2007

BTW, Daryl's joke would have worked (better) if Reed hadn't used scare quotes around "Jesusasaurus rex", but the scare quotes indicate that the reference is to real fossils, the sort that a real Carl Sagan would have talked about dating -- which are not, as a matter of fact, "only a few thousand years old at most".

Finally, that I said something non-funny about something intended to be a joke does not mean that I didn't get the joke or don't have a sense of humor, or even that I didn't find it funny (slightly, but marred by missing the point) -- that's a fallacy, and a form of anti-intellectualism.

Anonymous_Coward · 6 March 2007

There, you accused me of making an irrelevant comment

No. I said your comment was irrelevant as far as the context (mis)represented by realpc was concerned. Nowhere, except maybe in your insecurity, was it ever implied that your comment in that thread was irrelevant in regards to the original context.

here, you accuse me of failing to detect humor

Only certain kinds. Not all of them directly related to this thread, of course.

But he missed the mark, because carbon dating is part of the unedited text attributed to Sagan, not part of the edited text addressed to rednecks, so the youngness of Jesusaurus isn't relevant because carbon dating referred to real dinosaurs, not to fake redneck YEC versions

Yes, the youngness of Jesusaurus isn't relevant. But it was made relevant by Daryl purely for the purposes of humour by further parodying the YEC thought. The fact that it wasn't relevant, but was used to parody YEC thought successfully is what makes Daryl's comment humorous.

this is a point that is apparently quite beyond your comprehension.

I fully comprehend that Reed's point was that carbon dating is not suitable to date dinosaurs in the real world. But you still do not comprehend the humour of parodying YEC thought. Parodying a group stereotyped for their stupidity involves mimicking the style of that group. Which is why Daryl made the age of Jesusaurus Rex relevant.

Anonymous_Coward · 6 March 2007

Finally, that I said something non-funny about something intended to be a joke does not mean that I didn't get the joke or don't have a sense of humor,

Of course it doesn't. But that's a straw man. Nowhere did I make an argument that you lack a sense of humour simply because you replied with something non-humorous. No, the argument I made was that you did not have a sense of humour because you failed to realise that Daryl's "missing the point" was an intended part of the humour.

or even that I didn't find it funny (slightly, but marred by missing the point) --- that's a fallacy, and a form of anti-intellectualism.

Like I said before, that you found it marred because it missed the point does point to a lack of a sense of humour on your part because it is precisely that it was INTENDED to miss the point to parody typical YEC responses that gives it a part of its humour. When someone cannot experience a joke purely because of apparent technical incorrectness is one of the many ways someone lacks a sense of humour for certain kinds of jokes. I find that taking the time to explain the mechanics of humour in all its forms is quite pro-intellectual because it encourages intellectual humour (of which parody is quite a subtle art).

Popper's ghost · 6 March 2007

No. I said your comment was irrelevant as far as the context (mis)represented by realpc was concerned.

As I explained there, you were wrong. You were dim there, you were dim here, you have been dim repeatedly in our interactions; it's part of your nature.

Anonymous_Coward · 6 March 2007

As I explained there, you were wrong. You were dim there, you were dim here, you have been dim repeatedly in our interactions; it's part of your nature.

Your definition of dim seems to mean "disagrees with you" regardless of whether you yourself are wrong... Like I explained, you have no sense of humour especially for Daryl's comment. And part of your nature, as revealed by our interactions, is much like what you are doing now, switching to irrelevant insults when you are no longer able to dig your way out of your own hole.

Popper's ghost · 6 March 2007

Your definition of dim seems to mean "disagrees with you" regardless of whether you yourself are wrong...

No, my definition is the one from the dictionary: "not understanding clearly. rather stupid; dim-witted." As when you write in the other thread that algorithmic complexity isn't defined in terms of programs, and talk about numbers of inputs and outputs, as if "algorithmic complexity" referred to the structural complexity of algorithms (it doesn't), and say that "some programs use algorithms" (every program is an implementation of an algorithm). You write about matters that you are quite ignorant about, although you could easily become marginally informed about them just by using google or wikipedia. The fact is, you just aren't very bright, and aren't even bright enough to realize it.

Anonymous_Coward · 6 March 2007

As when you write in the other thread that algorithmic complexity isn't defined in terms of programs, and talk about numbers of inputs and outputs, as if "algorithmic complexity" referred to the structural complexity of algorithms (it doesn't),

Stupid statement #1: structural complexity of algorithms? That makes no sense in terms of that thread. The closest thing that I can think of that comes close to whatever "structural complexity of algorithms" means is cyclomatic complexity, which I never touched on. As for your confusion about algorithmic complexity and kolmogorov complexity, I've explained in the other thread.

and say that "some programs use algorithms" (every program is an implementation of an algorithm).

And since when does a statement "some programs" ever necessarily imply "some programs don't"? You got baited quite easily. Would have Made my day if it wasn't so easy.

You write about matters that you are quite ignorant about, although you could easily become marginally informed about them just by using google or wikipedia. The fact is, you just aren't very bright, and aren't even bright enough to realize it.

Your advice does not take into account that you lack enough knowledge to differentiate between algorithmic complexity (time or memory) from Kolmogorov yet can't proceed to insult someone with domain knowledge...

Popper's ghost · 6 March 2007

As for your confusion about algorithmic complexity and kolmogorov complexity, I've explained in the other thread.

And I explained that you're an idiot. You type "algorithmic complexity" into wikipedia and don't even notice that the article you get is titled "Computational complexity theory". Wikipedia is unreliable enough, and redirections aren't reliable at all. A proper discussion of algorithmic complexity is given at http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Algorithmic_Complexity The term is sometimes used in either sense, but everything I wrote about "complexity" in that thread was in the Algorithmic information Theory (AIT) sense, i.e. Kolmogorov complexity, aka "AC".

Popper's ghost · 6 March 2007

And since when does a statement "some programs" ever necessarily imply "some programs don't"? You got baited quite easily.

It doesn't necessarily imply it, but you meant it as a subset and are now lying about it, being the unethical slug that you are.

Anonymous_Coward · 6 March 2007

It doesn't necessarily imply it, but you meant it as a subset and are now lying about it, being the unethical slug that you are.

Just like your inability to sense some forms of humour, your inability to understand tactics is quite pronounced. In actual fact, I did mean it as a subset. That's how baiting works. Read the Art of War for gudssake. Did I ever claim that I never meant it as a subset? How is that a lie if I wasn't denying the truth?

Anonymous_Coward · 6 March 2007

And I explained that you're an idiot. You type "algorithmic complexity" into wikipedia and don't even notice that the article you get is titled "Computational complexity theory". Wikipedia is unreliable enough, and redirections aren't reliable at all. A proper discussion of algorithmic complexity is given at http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Algorithmic_... The term is sometimes used in either sense, but everything I wrote about "complexity" in that thread was in the Algorithmic information Theory (AIT) sense, i.e. Kolmogorov complexity, aka "AC".

Like I explained in the other thread: Your whole argument about algorithmic complexity in the context of realpc's posts is just an irrelevant strawman. Maybe you should read OTHER LINKS (figure of speech) about algorithmic complexity in a google search which talks about algorithmic complexity as computational complexity. There is a reason why Wikipedia redirects it to its more COMMON usage in computational complexity.

Popper's ghost · 6 March 2007

your inability to understand tactics is quite pronounced.

I'm interested in truth, not tactics, jackass.

Popper's ghost · 6 March 2007

Your whole argument about algorithmic complexity in the context of realpc's posts is just an irrelevant strawman.

So it seems to you because you're so dim. And so it will always be. g'night.

Anonymous_Coward · 6 March 2007

I'm interested in truth, not tactics, jackass.

Which is why you so often get drawn into slippery arguments with people like realpc, completely oblivious to the fact that you lose sight of their original arguments. Judging by your behaviour, you're not really interested in truth. You're more interested in finding ways of artifically boosting up your own self-image and self-worth by posing as the saviour of the ignorant. Otherwise, you would have not continually been drawn into tactics like realpc's who are obviously there to lure pitbulls like you. If you're interested in truth, then try realising that truth. I'm done with you too, angry boy.

Popper's ghost · 6 March 2007

Which is why ... Judging by ... Otherwise, ... If ...

So it seems to you because you're so dim.

I'm done with you too, angry boy.

On the contrary, you're fixated on me.

paul flocken · 6 March 2007

@ AC and PG,
Why don't the two of you just get a room somewhere?

Pigwidgeon · 6 March 2007

I'd like to say that I was going to make the same joke as Daryl, as it's my style of humour. Paul Merton is my hero. ;)

Aryaman Shalizi · 6 March 2007

I agree with PG. The witers for "Family Guy" should have done their homework and used an appropriate radiometric dating method.

Then again, if they had done their homework, it would be "The Simpsons."

Bill Gascoyne · 6 March 2007

"Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it."
E.B White (1899 - 1985)

Vyoma · 8 March 2007

A quick word in defense of "rednecks," because somebody's gotta do it!

The person who has probably taught me more about biology in general, and evolutionary biology in particular, is a plant biochemist who grew up in a very rural setting in South Georgia and who, until he went off to university himself, only wore shoes to church on Sundays and most of whose wardrobe consisted of overalls. He was the descendant of a long line of itinerant southern Baptist preachers.

I myself have spent the last several years living (when not in a lab!) in what amount to a wooden shack in the woods of northern Florida. OK, I grew up in Brooklyn, but I guess you could say that some of my best friends are "rednecks" these days... and yes, we do talk about evolution and science in general. As socially conservative as they are in many ways, you'd be surprised how reasonable they can be when you start pointing things out in the world they know immediately around them.

True story here: the handyman who works on my house is a good ol' boy named Buford who probably doesn't have better than a ninth grade education. Nonetheless, he likes to ask me questions about what I'm doing laboratory-wise and when I've pointed out things that he knows that have evolved, he has no trouble with the evolutionary part of it. We just had a long talk about beavers, otters and 'possums the other day, in fact.

OK, enough rambling. ust remember, rednecks need science, too. ;)