The Family Guy and Simpsons Do Evolution

If I remember correctly, these two great episodes were debuted on the same day!

I've never seen these before! That's awesome. According to my confirmation bias, it seems that there is a lot more 'religion as comedy' on these sorts of shows than there used to be. Great!

I don't have a TV so I can't say whether religion is being used as comedy more than it used to be, but as for the Simpsons they always just follow what is happening in politics and pop culture, which the whole creationism idea clearly falls under.

no tv?!?!?!?

I laughed myself silly when "What a Fool Believes" played over the Flanders exhibit.

Fifty years ago, it was risky poking fun at religion.

Any mention of atheism in the media -- a very rare event -- would trot out Madeline Murray O'Hare as an example of an atheist and have nothing unkind to say about her, and that would be it, story over. The impression the naive would get was that atheists were very rare and were weird old bats.

Now that the major media have competition, they cannot enforce the tacit standards-and-practices principle that all religious ass must be kissed so hard it leaves scars.

Now it's becoming open season on religion, both for comedy and criticism, and the comedy gets big laughs (as does much of the criticism). Ordinary people enjoy seeing religion take it in the shorts.

Religious people, now losing their big-media shielding, are attacking viciously, as they are unused to being the butt of open ridicule.

So, laugh, laugh, laugh. Conjurers casting spells? Damn, that's funny!!!! Point at the silly buggers and hoot-hoot-hoot.

And here's the evolution vs.. creationism debate starring YOU!

Act one: Evolutionists say that life created itself our of a 'pond of chemical.'

Act two: Creationists say where is the evidence.

Act three: Evolutionists say we don't know how life began.

Act four: Creationists says to evolutionists, you say evolution is a science and yet you can't tell us precisely how it started.

Creationists say again: We CAN stop this argument right now. All you evolutionists scientists need do is create a simple cell in your laboratory. Do the following:

If you evolutionists want to end the arguments all you have to do is, get your brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since the scientists certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.

After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.

If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.

Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

James, what are your core fears?

James,

Your debate was improperly phrased, methinks:
Act 1: Creationists: "God did it."
Science: "Okay ... but isn't it interesting that ...?"
Act 2: Science: "Well there's a possible alternate theory ..."
Creationists say: "God did it," more loudly.
Act 3: Science says: "No, actually, here's some more evidence ..."
Creationists say: "God did it," even louder.
Act 4: Science says: "No, look here ... no, here ... not my hand, here. It's really quite clear that your explanation has some serious holes ... um would you just stop that shouting now ..."

And the "debate" goes on.

I will happily place all the elements extant on earth into a large container and shake them up for a few billion years.

However, turnabout is fair play. I assume your god will be out there with the rest of us? All he has to do is manifest himself and act in a provable way to create a single living cell. Shouldn't be too tough for him, eh?

If the demo stood the test of science, I'd even convert to whatever He thought the Right church was.

Uh...James?

"Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over."

They are doing exactly this... So I guess the argument is over? Take a look at this article:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/06/scientists_appl.html

Fortunately for all of us, now that clear evidence has been linked to on this journal that answers James' original question, he cannot EVER pose that question again on a forum without lying.

I mean, lying is still a sin, right James?

Any mention of atheism in the media -- a very rare event -- would trot out Madeline Murray O'Hare as an example of an atheist and have nothing unkind to say about her, and that would be it, story over. The impression the naive would get was that atheists were very rare and were weird old bats.

Now that the major media have competition, they cannot enforce the tacit standards-and-practices principle that all religious ass must be kissed so hard it leaves scars.

Now it's becoming open season on religion, both for comedy and criticism, and the comedy gets big laughs (as does much of the criticism). Ordinary people enjoy seeing religion take it in the shorts.

Religious people, now losing their big-media shielding, are attacking viciously, as they are unused to being the butt of open ridicule.

So, laugh, laugh, laugh. Conjurers casting spells? Damn, that's funny!!!! Point at the silly buggers and hoot-hoot-hoot.

Any mention of atheism in the media -- a very rare event -- would trot out Madeline Murray O'Hare as an example of an atheist and have nothing unkind to say about her, and that would be it, story over. The impression the naive would get was that atheists were very rare and were weird old bats.

Now that the major media have competition, they cannot enforce the tacit standards-and-practices principle that all religious ass must be kissed so hard it leaves scars.

Now it's becoming open season on religion, both for comedy and criticism, and the comedy gets big laughs (as does much of the criticism). Ordinary people enjoy seeing religion take it in the shorts.

Religious people, now losing their big-media shielding, are attacking viciously, as they are unused to being the butt of open ridicule.

never seen these before! That's awesome. According to my confirmation bias, it seems that there is a lot more 'religion as comedy' on these sorts of shows than there used to be. Great!

Now that the major media have competition, they cannot enforce the tacit standards-and-practices principle that all religious ass must be kissed so hard it leaves scars.

Now it's becoming open season on religion, both for comedy and criticism, and the comedy gets big laughs (as does much of the criticism). Ordinary people enjoy seeing religion take it in the shorts.

Now it's becoming open season on religion, both for comedy and criticism, and the comedy gets big laughs (as does much of the criticism). Ordinary people enjoy seeing religion take it in the shorts.

Fortunately for all of us, now that clear evidence has been linked to on this journal that answers James' original question, he cannot EVER pose that question again on a forum without lying.