PDA

View Full Version : The Daily Show tackles evolution



ToSeek
2005-Sep-08, 03:58 PM
This is gonna be priceless:

'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' Presents 'Evolution Schmevolution: A Daily Show Special Report' Airing Nightly From September 12-15 at 11:00 P.M.* (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-07-2005/0004102163&EDATE=)


Science vs. Religion. Evolution vs.
Creation. It is an age-old battle whose time has come. "The Daily Show with
Jon Stewart" will gather together all the experts (or at least those who will
talk to them), travel to the places that matter in the debate (basic cable
budget permitting) and ultimately settle the controversy once and for all.
"Evolution Schmevolution: A Daily Show Special Report" will premiere on
Monday, September 12 and air nightly at 11:00 p.m. through September 15.
...
P.S. -- You're next, gravity.

peter eldergill
2005-Sep-08, 04:52 PM
Good grief, a whole week of staying up late.

It's one of my favourite shows on TV. That Bart Sibrel piece was great.

Pete

Kesh
2005-Sep-08, 06:43 PM
Oh god. I'm glad we're getting satellite set up today. And, of course, I'll have to buy the DVD when it comes out. :D

Normandy6644
2005-Sep-08, 06:53 PM
That's awesome! I'm gonna make my friend Tivo it for me since I don't have cable yet.

suttsteve
2005-Sep-08, 06:57 PM
There's no need to stay up late. They repeat the previous day's show the following day, at 8pm ET. It should be interesting.

peter eldergill
2005-Sep-08, 10:47 PM
Perhaps...but I'm in Toronto and they only repeat it while I'm at work.

It'll give me an excuse to stay up late at wait for my wife to get home from work

Pete

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Sep-09, 03:05 AM
Perhaps...but I'm in Toronto and they only repeat it while I'm at work.

It'll give me an excuse to stay up late at wait for my wife to get home from work

Pete
You NEED, an Excuse, for That?

;)

peter eldergill
2005-Sep-09, 03:31 AM
Well, she usually gets home at about midnight, unless she works overtime...makes for a pretty tough married life...no kids yet, can't imagine what it will be like then!

Pete

Enzp
2005-Sep-09, 04:18 AM
They also run it at 10AM as well. I watch it then, ends my day nicely. I need to be rested up to waste my nights here.

peter eldergill
2005-Sep-13, 03:38 AM
Just finished watching part I. Hi-Lar-ious!

Can't wait for the next bunch of episodes.

Hey, didn't Phil write a book? (Ha!) Maybe he should be on the show. His book is 10^100 times more interesting than most of the stuff they have on there.

What about Jay Utah? He should write a book and get on the show...

Anyhow, I know Jon Stewart is really biased, but how bad is he, really? Is he Michael Moore biases (or perhaps even more?)

L8R

Pete

Enzp
2005-Sep-13, 05:37 AM
Oh Jon probably pounces harder on the conservatives than the liberals overall, but stupidity and hypocricy of any stripe gets instant attention. Watch a few shows and make your own assessment. I thought he was quite reserved when he interviewed Rick Santorum, Santorum being an easy target in my view. If it is any help to you, Jon gets top flight guests and more than I would have thought are politicians, including a healthy number of right wingers. if they are willing to appear, that is something.

peter eldergill
2005-Sep-13, 12:44 PM
Enzp

I have been watching the show for quite a while, I'm just not that good at determining when he's taking things out of context. I just find the show hilarious. I also don't watch American news, so Jon is the only source I get (according to him, is a bad thing)

Gotta go, classes are about to start!

Pete

Normandy6644
2005-Sep-13, 02:36 PM
He tends to hit both sides equally hard in my opinion. He did a show here last year at my school and everyone kind of expected him to go nuts on the republicans but he actually was probably harsher on Kerry than he was on Bush. All in all he's probably closer to the left than the right, but he does a godo job of spotting idiocy wherever it shows up.

novaderrik
2005-Sep-13, 07:13 PM
he is very left leaning, but if needed, he will pounce on fellow lefties.
his bias really starts to show when the subject turns to the war or the whole Katrina deal- but, then again, there are plenty of conservatives that agree with him there.
overall, he'll make fun of anything and anyone that needs to be made fun of- and even things that you didn't think could be made fun of.
if he wasn't a comedian, he'd make a fine journalist.

Gillianren
2005-Sep-13, 09:46 PM
I think the two are no more mutually exclusive than being religious and knowing that evolution is fact--you just have to know where the borders between journalism and humour are.

m13_higgs
2005-Sep-13, 10:46 PM
Sometimes Jon gives a more coherent and complete coverage of a story than the "real" media does. Especially the ones the government is hoping will just go away, like the CIA agent who was outed a few months ago.

Enzp
2005-Sep-14, 02:44 AM
I like that a favorite activity is skewering public figures when they lie. He does it by letting them speak for themselves. For example when Frist came out in the Schiavo case and said he had studied the tapes and determined she was NOT in a presistent vegetative state. Then after the autopsy he denied ever making such a claim. On the Daily show we got to see tapes of eacgh statement one after the other.

And on of my all time favorites was the "debate" he showed between Texas Governor George W. Bush and President George W. Bush. It was a compilation of tapes of the president saying things that directly contradicted things he said campaigning for the position when he was governor. But aside from the revealing nature of the piece it was also nicely done, done to look like a televised debate, including split screen, and even nice touches such as a picture of one of them rolling his eyes as the other one spoke.

My one complaint about the show is that his correspondents, while often very funny, all seem to do more or less the same bit as each other, and every time.

Inferno
2005-Sep-14, 03:28 AM
The show I most wish the networks would pick up here in australia.... :(

gopher65
2005-Sep-14, 03:46 AM
I love this show, but I rarely catch it. The repeats are on while I am at work (usually), and I work too early in the morning to fee like staying up that late.

And he is definately far left. But he hits his own side just as hard as he does the righties. :)

Donnie B.
2005-Sep-14, 03:00 PM
The fact that you consider Jon Stewart "far left" is an indication of just how far the center in the US has shifted to the right.

Stewart is (like me) what I would once have called a moderate, or maybe a little left of center. I'm hoping I live long enough to see the pendulum swing back a bit.

hewhocaves
2005-Sep-14, 03:56 PM
The fact that you consider Jon Stewart "far left" is an indication of just how far the center in the US has shifted to the right.

Stewart is (like me) what I would once have called a moderate, or maybe a little left of center. I'm hoping I live long enough to see the pendulum swing back a bit.

agreed.

John

Maksutov
2005-Sep-14, 04:06 PM
The fact that you consider Jon Stewart "far left" is an indication of just how far the center in the US has shifted to the right.

Stewart is (like me) what I would once have called a moderate, or maybe a little left of center. I'm hoping I live long enough to see the pendulum swing back a bit.You and me both. Those who claim Stewart is a leftist are just recoiling from the barbs he throws at all who are distorting the truth. Now, what does that tell you?

Stewart would be in jail if the Alien and Sedition Acts (http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/) were still the law (do the particulars sound familiar?). Then again, many are looking for their revival.

peter eldergill
2005-Sep-14, 05:01 PM
Watched again last night....pretty dissapointing commentary I thought. Not particularly useful and not really all that funny. Most of the time was talking about the supreme court....I wanted schmevolution!!

Kurt Vonnegut was on the show. I've read a couple of his books and enjoyed them, except "Sirens of Titan", which I really didn't like...

He was interesting, but I don't think I could have a prolonged conversation with him!

L8R

Pete

novaderrik
2005-Sep-14, 10:13 PM
my favorite part was where he showed that one senator breaking into tears and getting all emotional while asking a question at the Supreme court hearing, then they showed some quotes of his from a year or 2 ago saying that gays were the "single biggest threat to western civilization" and a few other not so nice things, and commenting on what a genuinely nice guy he is.
that was pretty priceless.
and i thought the comparison of the human to the moinkey was pretty good.

hewhocaves
2005-Sep-15, 03:29 AM
The third installment just ended. The 'panel' was a complete flop. Science's arguments were weak, politicized and used the word 'belief' far too often. The creationist was jovial and engaging and what the #$#$#@ was that woman on for????

Jon Stewart really looked out of his league tonight. A pity as it'll get spun as a victory for C.

John

PS: they could have put any one of us on there and we would have done 1000% better with a day's prep.

Enzp
2005-Sep-15, 04:23 AM
If you can't get it on TV, you can see a large body of his work at the Comedy Central web site.

Maksutov
2005-Sep-15, 08:07 AM
The third installment just ended. The 'panel' was a complete flop. Science's arguments were weak, politicized and used the word 'belief' far too often. The creationist was jovial and engaging and what the #$#$#@ was that woman on for????

Jon Stewart really looked out of his league tonight. A pity as it'll get spun as a victory for C.

John

PS: they could have put any one of us on there and we would have done 1000% better with a day's prep.Interesting. I saw the panel part as just the opposite. Jon's question to the DI ID guy re the intelligence of the design of certain reproductive organs was spot on, and the DI ID guy was at a loss for words. He might have seemed "jovial" at first, but when Jon got done with him, his expression was one of great petulance and embarrassment. The gal was your usual New Ager, used to show how close to that stuff ID is. The biology prof did use "believe" and "belief" too much, but his final statement about keeping ID crap out of science classes was quite stirring and wholly logical.

BTW, while the gal was spewing her stuff, I kept thinking about certain threads in the ATM forum, especially when she started describing the nature of reality as being comprised of twelve aspects, etc. Woo boy!



[edit/clarification]

peter eldergill
2005-Sep-15, 06:17 PM
I found last night's show (Wednesday night) way better than the night before. I thought the panel was so so. I'm sure Jon was trying his best not to mock and generally to be polite. I think he could have done fine without the "12 parts of conciousness" or whatever it was (timecube? Ha! Sweet stuff...was timecube supposed to be a spoof?)

I hope tonight is good

Pete

Gillianren
2005-Sep-15, 06:58 PM
I, too, found the New Age-y woman to be strangely familiar, to the point that I wondered if, perhaps, she had a certain member of this board as a relative. (she should've been wearing a different outfit, too, as the one she wore was susceptible to a certain female-only wardrobe issue. at the very least, wearing a white bra under it was a bad idea.)

the DI guy . . . I thought two of Jon's questions were dead on for exposing his agenda (though why no one brought up the wedge strategy is beyond me). first was the baseball bat thing. second was asking whether the religious or scientific conversion came first.

I just wish they'd had an actual scientist supporting evolution--someone who works with it day in and day out, like the microbiologist who was post-of-the-month on TalkOrigins not long ago.

I found the Kurt Vonnegut interview strangely embarrassing; while he's considered one of the great minds of the twentieth century, and while he was very funny, that great mind seemed to be slipping a bit.

hewhocaves
2005-Sep-15, 10:51 PM
I dunno. Maybe I'm just oversensetive to the issue at this point. I just have the feeling that, intellectualy, to that crowd science should have wiped the floor with ID. Granted it wouldn't have been 'fair', but how many of the religious rallies, church meetings, other talk show hosts and what not have been 'fair' for science?

In short, I expected better of the home team.

John

Donnie B.
2005-Sep-16, 10:56 AM
Incidentally, the "ID guy" was none other than William Dembski, one of the two or three "leading lights" of the ID movement and a founder of the so-called Discovery Institute. Having him on the panel with someone who is not widely known as an evolutionary biologist is a bit lopsided.

On the other hand, in a very brief format like this, there's no chance for meaningful debate. It can be more effective to score "sound bite" points than to be an expert; the latter can sometimes get bogged down in details and lose the audience.

I can't give any meaningful assessment of the debate, because I was called away just after the introduction and first round of comments, and then only saw the last few seconds. Hmmph.

Ditto your remarks about Vonnegut. Definitely less than tack-sharp. But still pretty cool. I liked the way he led Jon on about his (Vonnegut's) "faith". (Anybody remember the "Church of God the Utterly Indifferent" from The Sirens of Titan? Reading that was an "Aha!" moment for me as a yout'...)

Maksutov
2005-Sep-16, 11:22 AM
Incidentally, the "ID guy" was none other than William Dembski, one of the two or three "leading lights" of the ID movement and a founder of the so-called Discovery Institute.That "leading light" came across as the equivalent of a 7W bulb. Jon's cornering him re "which came first" was terrific, and most folks apparently caught the implication about shoehorning "facts".


Ditto your remarks about Vonnegut. Definitely less than tack-sharp. But still pretty cool. I liked the way he led Jon on about his (Vonnegut's) "faith". (Anybody remember the "Church of God the Utterly Indifferent" from The Sirens of Titan? Reading that was an "Aha!" moment for me as a yout'...)I know this is completely unacceptable to the PC crowd, but, could it be Kurt's getting old?

Donnie B.
2005-Sep-16, 11:50 AM
I know this is completely unacceptable to the PC crowd, but, could it be Kurt's getting old?Well, he is getting old. And old people can lose mental capacity. I don't see why that would offend anybody's sensibilites.

Anyhow, I have seen Vonnegut before, and it seems to me he was always somewhat hesitant and deliberate in his manner of speaking. Just not so much as this time.

Enzp
2005-Sep-17, 03:38 AM
Did you say "yout' ?"

Gillianren
2005-Sep-17, 04:31 AM
oh, I know people who'd been all heapin' offended by the implication that ol' Kurt's not the best public speaker, even though he's, well, old. similarly, Ken Kesey was my college graduation speaker. he didn't give a speech, though--he read a piece he'd written for something else. lost the last couple pages, too. I said, after, that he wasn't a very good speaker and I was frankly glad I'd brought a book. (the one my sig line is from, if I remember properly.) well, you'd think I'd advocated killing puppies. especially after he died. (which I'd like to make very clear that I had nothing to do with!)

no, I thought evolution did fairly nicely in the panel discussion. especially the whole "well, not everything looks intelligent to us" bit from Mr. Discovery Institute. I mean, if it doesn't, where's the intelligent part of intelligent design?

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2005-Sep-17, 05:51 AM
oh, I know people who'd been all heapin' offended by the implication that ol' Kurt's not the best public speaker, even though he's, well, old. similarly, Ken Kesey was my college graduation speaker. he didn't give a speech, though--he read a piece he'd written for something else. lost the last couple pages, too. I said, after, that he wasn't a very good speaker and I was frankly glad I'd brought a book. (the one my sig line is from, if I remember properly.) well, you'd think I'd advocated killing puppies. especially after he died. (which I'd like to make very clear that I had nothing to do with!)

no, I thought evolution did fairly nicely in the panel discussion. especially the whole "well, not everything looks intelligent to us" bit from Mr. Discovery Institute. I mean, if it doesn't, where's the intelligent part of intelligent design?
Yeah ...

Like What ENGINEER, Worth their Title, Would Run a Waste Disposal Pipe, Through a Playground!?!

And Yes, Just in Case, Anyone is Wondering, I am Talking About, The Tetrapodal Reproductive System, Is that, Ok, with Everyone?

Donnie B.
2005-Sep-17, 01:22 PM
oh, I know people who'd been all heapin' offended by the implication that ol' Kurt's not the best public speaker, even though he's, well, old.I've run into the phenomenon myself, Gillian.

A while back I saw a TV special with Gordon Lightfoot (the singer/songwriter best known for The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald). He was a mess -- wasted away, looked like he was dying of something. And his voice! You'd never know it had once been that clear, smooth instrument. It was shocking, frankly.

I jumped on line and found a Lightfoot fans' message board. I posted a question to find out if he had cancer or something. As you can imagine, the fans were less than pleased with my observations on their hero.

Getting old -- or watching it happen to somebody else -- is not always a lot of fun.

Then again, there are counterexamples. James Taylor's voice seems to get better and better every year. And then there's the ageless Mick Jagger. He must have a really wretched-looking portrait tucked away in his attic!

BenM
2005-Sep-17, 03:19 PM
On the other hand, in a very brief format like this, there's no chance for meaningful debate. It can be more effective to score "sound bite" points than to be an expert; the latter can sometimes get bogged down in details and lose the audience.

I forgot who, it might have been Chris Mooney, but I read about the potential wisdom of not accepting invitations to debates about evolution/ID. The idea was that the ID crowd has perfected a series of talking points that can seem quite reasonable to the casual listener.

On the other hand, those explaining evolution have to not only defend the process, but have to either explain the philosophy of science or assume that the audience is familiar with it, which is probably not the case.

Hale_Bopp
2005-Sep-18, 09:43 PM
Yeah ...

Like What ENGINEER, Worth their Title, Would Run a Waste Disposal Pipe, Through a Playground!?!

And Yes, Just in Case, Anyone is Wondering, I am Talking About, The Tetrapodal Reproductive System, Is that, Ok, with Everyone?

A civil engineer!

:)

Rob

antoniseb
2005-Sep-18, 10:21 PM
I had asked my wife to catch this series on DVR so I can see it when I get home in a couple weeks, but she lost two of the episodes. She said that in the fourth installment Jon Stewart said that it was obvious that this debate had gone on about three days too long, so I gather that the later segments weren't that good.

hewhocaves
2005-Sep-19, 01:41 AM
On the other hand, those explaining evolution have to not only defend the process, but have to either explain the philosophy of science or assume that the audience is familiar with it, which is probably not the case.


yes that is the major flaw in that thinking. by not engaging in the debate (reagrdless of how obvious the solution ought to be) we render ourselves irrelevent. Sadly, if that means that we have to reduce our argument to persuasive sound bytes then that's what we need to do.

I mean, for PX's sake... we ARE talking about Rocket Scientists here.

John

Gillianren
2005-Sep-19, 07:27 AM
I had asked my wife to catch this series on DVR so I can see it when I get home in a couple weeks, but she lost two of the episodes. She said that in the fourth installment Jon Stewart said that it was obvious that this debate had gone on about three days too long, so I gather that the later segments weren't that good.

well, again, I quite liked the panel discussion. (wasn't really a debate, though they did keep calling it one.) and, frankly, even when the Daily Show isn't that good, it's still better than a lot of what's out there, right?

Donnie B.
2005-Sep-19, 02:35 PM
I had asked my wife to catch this series on DVR so I can see it when I get home in a couple weeks, but she lost two of the episodes. She said that in the fourth installment Jon Stewart said that it was obvious that this debate had gone on about three days too long, so I gather that the later segments weren't that good.Another interpretation of that statement is that the evolution side is so overwhelmingly correct, and the ID side so silly, that the issue didn't need four days' worth of attention.

Or, it was just typical self-depricating humor (along the lines of: this show is so bad! It's awful! I don't know why anyone would watch it!) It is, after all, a comedy show.

Unfortunately I missed the fourth show entirely. Maybe I'll check the Comedy Central site to see if it's available on line.