Kiss me, you big ape



Someone sent me this in email. Says it all, doesn’t it? If anyone has seen the original posted on a newspaper website or something, please post the link.


Smoke plume or Bacterial Flagella on the back of that plane?

Boo-hoo Behe has not been heard from recently. Anyone?

Someone said he was interviewed on Hannity & Colmes the other night (last night?) and that he didn’t do well, despite the fact that it was Fox News.

Transcript here:,2933[…]9604,00.html

I’m partisan, but not a good showing. Interesting that the Fox guys weren’t sympathetic.

It was drawn by Gary Varvel of the Indianapolis Star News[…]2220001/1093

Shouldn’t this have a trackback to the other post about King Kong?

Ha! Good job, Liz! You nailed it while I was tracking it down. Gary’s cartoon appeared yesterday, 12/22/05.

Someone said he was interviewed on Hannity & Colmes the other night (last night?) and that he didn’t do well, despite the fact that it was Fox News.

Of course, I have to wonder a little bit how the show might have gone differently had Hannity actually been in that night to hold Colmes’ leash… :)

I hate to spoil the movie for people, but, in the end, King Kong is killed by those biplanes. ;) We certainly do not want to see fiction come to life in this situation.

Thankyouverymuch, Steviepinhead!

I had found it a good 13 minutes before Liz…

Oh well, ‘tis the season to be jolly!

[here should go a smilie, except that I don’t like them very much]

Oops, Aureola! I was looking for links to the originating newspaper, The Indianapolis Star, and my eye either scanned over your link or misconstrued it to be another Behe-blab link.

(One might think I would know for sure what my eye was doing only a few minutes back but, unfortunately, it’s not very intelligently designed.)

My bad!

I was all geared up to see Hannity fawn over Behe and portray him as a persecuted man of science last night on the Hannity and Colmes show, to my surprise Hannity took the night off and some other guy was sitting in for him.

As I mentioned in another thread here I was very pleased Colmes and whoever this other guy was did not roll over and let Behe scratch their bellies with tales of Mt Rushmore and mouse traps. He tried though. The interview was very short and Behe had very little time to answer any of the questions in depth.

Behe seemed very unprepeared for the quick and pointed rat-tat-tat line of questions coming from the hosts. I thought the hosts seemed quite skeptical of ID and Behe himself and the show’s transcript does not translate this very well. Colmes may have had a copy of Jones’ ruling in one hand.

Considering this was Fox I was majorly satisfied.[…]c/tt20051223 – Tom Toles of the Washington Post gets it right, too.

Sort-of relevant, a friend sent this link to me.

I’ll be wearing a helmet on Sunday.


Heh! Nice one! I love how the little hairy guy is the only organism in the frame heading in roughly the “right” direction.

Run, little hairy guy, run! After all, in a few million years, Lenny’s gonna be wanting his pizza!

I see that particular editorial cartoon finally made it on PT. I also see that Liz posted the link to it on the Indianapolis Star. I saw that cartoon - I think that it was on either Wednesday (12/21) or Thursday (12/22).

I’ve posted this advisory before on PT - I am afraid that Indiana is going to be the next state where this battle is going to be played out. State Representative Bruce Borders was reported to have said in the Indianapolis Star (the same day that the cartoon was shown) that he doesn’t care what the decision in Dover ruled. He and several like minded christian fundamentalist still plan on introducing legislation in 2006 mandating that all Indiana public schools teach ID alongside Evolution Science. I see another battleground forming.

If you zoom in closely the pilot of the biplane is Behe.

Here’s another good one:[…]c/tt20051223

Wes’s description:

Quick, go have a look at Tom Toles’ editorial cartoon.

Two primates consider a drawing upon which three identical quadrupeds are drawn. From left to right, they bear the names, “Creationism”, “Creation Science”, and “Intelligent Design”. One of the figures is making the comment, “We’re not making a lot of progress.” In the corner is a closing mini-panel, a frequent feature of Toles’ artwork, where the other figure suggests, “Maybe a new name…”

And that is precisely what the antievolution movement has offered, time and again, when rebuffed by the courts. There is no consideration that perhaps the content is at issue, you know, that collection of classic antievolution arguments. Rather, new strategies simply take up how best to sell what we all know to be pressed sawdust as if it were cornflakes, and the answer has always been, “Change the name. They’ll never guess it’s the same thing we were selling last week.”

From the Hannity and Colmes show:

Behe Wrote:

What’s scientific is the structures of what we have discovered in the cell. In the cell there are molecular machines. They work by grabbing things, pushing them. Just like the machines in our everyday experience. This was utterly unexpected by science. (emphasis mine)

This is such an amazing statement - that science didn’t expect that cells would have molecular machines in them. Behe claims scientist expected that cells would just be inert, functionless blobs, despite the fact there are many living organisms that are but a single cell. Does Behe really think his audience is that dumb?

Does Behe really think his audience is that dumb?

depends on the audience; there were plenty enough that bought into Behe’s argument to bring us to the point of Kansas and Dover.

I for one DO think the audience is mostly just that dumb.

Does Behe really think his audience is that dumb?


Well, I just came back from seeing the movie.


It was a bit overdone for my tastes. Jackson kinda took all the salient points of the original and “extremeified” them, basically.

the special effects were fantastic, and the sets were great. direction was decent, acting was OK (don’t particularly care for Jack Black in the role he was chose for).

a bit too long as well.

I give it a 7 out of 10.

worth seeing, but don’t rush.

worth seeing, but don’t rush.

OK, then maybe I’ll just watch “Star Wars” on DVD for the gazillionth time. ;)

Following up on Comment 64616 (Behe quote)” “What’s scientific is the structures of what we have discovered in the cell. In the cell there are molecular machines. They work by grabbing things, pushing them. Just like the machines in our everyday experience. This was utterly unexpected by science.”

I scribbled a note about it, too. That “uttterly unexpected” bit made me laugh out loud. I’m not even a scientist, but I could see the stupidity. The part of the comment that first caught my attention, though, was “what WE have discovered in the cell.” I know Behe is a biologist (microbiologist?), but I kinda suspect that he was not responsible for discovering the structures in cells. Please, somebody validate or clarify this for me. I don’t want to have to read his book.

I’ve heard he’s a biochemist.

The thing is, I agree in part with what Behe said. To someone who hasn’t studied life in detail, it makes sense that simple processes should result in simple results. Tilt the cannon only slightly, change the cannonball’s mass only the tiniest bit, and the cannonball should fall in about the same place each time. How can one fit evolutionary theory into Newtonian mechanics?

But the trouble is, arguments from common sense have a bad track record in science. Ever since Poincare’s work on the three-body problem in 1890, we’ve discovered there’s more to the universe than Newtonian mechanics. We’ve discovered that in some instances, even the tiniest difference in one parameter can drastically change the system. We’ve discovered that even incredibly intricate systems, such as the human body, can result from a painfully simple set of processes: the laws of chemistry and physics, combined with mutation and natural selection. In fact, the very reason that I find evolutionary theory so beautiful is that it’s such a blatant violation of common sense, yet it still works.

As early as the XVIIth century, Homunculists had argued the complexity of the egg pointing out to the nucleus and other subcellular structures, despite they could barely see them. Several careful descriptions of cellular structures and organelles were available in the early 20th century. Behe’s ‘jell-o” is a plainly wrong protrayal of the history of biology. Then again, I doubt seriously that Behe has much knowledge on the history of biology. Unfortunately, biochemists today are lead to believe that knowing their field is enough to become a sorts of biological authority. Behe is a biochemist with no training or self-education in areas that anyone with a sincere interest in evolution should look into, such as paleontology. I guess Behe is much more interested in going to church than looking at some old fossils.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on December 23, 2005 12:18 PM.

Religious Freedom And Other Crimes Against Humanity was the previous entry in this blog.

Barbara Forrest on NPR is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter