Lisa Simpson Gets Arrested

| 97 Comments | 2 TrackBacks

On this Sunday’s episode of The Simpsons,

Lisa is arrested for defying the new law in Springfield against teaching evolution after Reverend Lovejoy is appointed by Mayor Quimby (at Ned Flanders’s request) to be the town’s new “morality czar” in charge of promoting creationism; can a comment made in the show’s first season come back to save her? Guest stars Larry Hagman and Melanie Griffith.

See you tomorrow!

UPDATE Well, I’ve seen the episode, and have a prediction. The Discovery Institute will whine and moan that it should have been the Intelligent Design (ID) proponent on trial, not the evolution defender. They will cite Dehart/Sternberg et. al., and say this episode is stuck in the past (Scopes).

But the Simpsons episode got one basic fact right - not only was evolution under attack in 1925, it is under attack today. Despite all the rhetoric - “Teach all sides,” “Teach the Controversy,” etc. - the simple fact is that both creationism and its constitution-wary descendant ID have at their root the wish to denigrate biology, to poo-poo modern science, to cast a “reasonable doubt” on scientific findings they cannot reconcile with their personal religion.

In the end, ID is all about censorship - censoring the vast evidence of evolution (“Those aren’t really ‘transitional’ fossils,” etc.), and encouraging students to simply dismiss any findings of science their elders might disagree with.

And that’s why the Simpson’s got it exactly right. Expect the usual Whine and Cheese by tomorrow. - Dave

2 TrackBacks

News from The Panda's Thumb: tonight, The Simpsons is all about the creationist pseudo-controversy, and Lisa gets arrested as an evilutionist. Let's all tune in!... Read More

The Panda Suit from The Inoculated Mind on May 14, 2006 11:18 AM

Tonight, Lisa Simpson is going to get arrested for defending good science education a la John T. Scopes. The Monkey Suit is sure to be entertaining, but I thought I would register a prediction about the reaction to it. ... Read More

97 Comments

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

Another Ned Flanders quote:

“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”

Mrs. Krabappel [shows list]: “How do you expect us to teach with just these?…the only books we have are salvaged ones banned by other schools.”

  • The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin
  • The Satanic Verses (Junior Illustrated Edition), Salman Rushdie
  • 40 Years of Playboy, Hugh Hefner
  • Steal This Book, Abbie Hoffman
  • Tek War, William Shatner
  • Hop On Pop, Dr. Seuss
  • Sexus, Henry Miller

Principal Skinner: “Well, the kids have to learn about ‘Tek War’ sooner or later.”

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/treeho[…]-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???

LOL I didn’t even see that, Sundaytrucker.

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.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

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.

Didja know that the Nazis published a booklet entitled “100 Scientists Against Einstein” ? They all had prestigious credentials from prestigious schools, too.

I liked Einstein’s reply – “If the theory were really wrong, just one would suffice”.

Why is it that these “scientists who question Darwin’s theory” spend all their time writing religious tracts for AiG, ICR and DI, instead of laying out their, uh, doubts, with supporting evidence, in peer-reviewed science journals?

Wait, let me guess ——– the big bad scientists are all atheists who are out to get you. Right?

Please start taking your lithium again.

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.

You never heard that Creationist Classic? The details are HERE:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html

It’s also a telling example of creationists’ inability to conceptualize religion and science as different things.

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

Um, I will believe that when openly being a Christian fundamentalist means that one inevitably loses elections for public office, or gets turned down for seats on the Supreme Court.

Robert Nowell Wrote:

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.

Uh, no, DeHart got reassigned (and kept his job) because he spent two weeks a year having his students read “Pandas and People” excerpts and other creationist materials and hold “debates” on the matter, and when the curriculum committee told him to cut it out, he hired a high-powered lawyer and refused. A real martyr for free speech, there.

Ryan Wrote:

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?

Apparently you wouldn’t be particularly scared if you were Darwin, since he didn’t recant.

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.

Uh huh. How many of those on your list accepted quantum mechanics and relativity? To express your solidarity with them, I think you should stop using all technology that uses those theories, like lasers and semiconductors and GPS.

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

I hear that it’s merged with other isms, such as Mendelism and Crick-and-Watsonism. So much for Purity Of Essence.

k.e. Wrote:

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

Fundamentalists are prevented from marrying each other and occasionally beaten to death? Poor things, I had no idea.

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.

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. He was not fired, though he should have been.

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

150 years is an outstanding track record for a complex theory such as evolution. Genetics and biology and other disciplines have, in contrary to the lie you just told for Jesus, have only made the theory of evolution more complex and stronger, with greater predictive and explanatory power, not less.

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.

Ha, ha, ha. The Engineers & the SLoT argument right next to each other in one paragraph. That’s just too funny. Except for a few fringe cranks, the scientific equivalent of Holocaust deniers, there is no dissent of those who are qualified to hold expert opinions. And the SLot argument is laughable tripe. Even creationists say that you shouldn’t use the SLoT argument anymore.

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.

Ah, you know 100 Nazi scientists signed a statement that Einstein’s theory was wrong. Einstein responded: If they were correct, only one would be enough. In other words, fringe minorities circulating statements in opposition to a well established, tested, and continuously verified theory are meaningless. May as well send a petition around about the Theory of Gravity is wrong for all that’ll keep you from going “splat” if you jump off a skyscraper.

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.

Newton was dead and not a biologist. Kepler was dead and a mathematician, not a scientist. Pasteur was a chemist who conducted experiments to prove germ theory of disease (which he didn’t invent); he also did a lot of work on inoculation. Maxwell a physicist/mathematician who did work on electricity, gases and magnetism. Morse was a painter and photographer who invented the Morse-code for the telegraph and not a biologist.

As an aside why don’t you attack physicists. They have dissenting factions, too. Same with geologists. Paleontologists. Archaeologists. Medical doctors. And, as far as I know, pretty much every complex area in many scientific discipline has some dissent and competing tweaks to it’s broad-based theory. It’s normal and healthy in science.

So why is this a problem for evolutionary biology? Why must biologists forgo their pet-tweaks to the Theory of Evolution to make you happy?

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.

Excuse me, but you and your little friends come here and talk down to people who actually have a clue and then after all the pejoratives, call on us to stop “denigrating?” The term Darwinist is as loaded a term as you can drop in the debate. Add in the rest of the godless, evil, atheist crap and some people are tired of it. In other words, clean up your hypocritical act before you lecture.

Then you come into a pro-evolution website with these stupid arguments that have been discredited for decades. Just for the arguments, never mind the obvious holier-than-thou attitude and underlying bigotry, you deserve denigration. You are humorously ignorant and completely unaware of your vast ignorance and yet lecture people from on high like you have clue.

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

Coming from a closed mind, that’s just too funny. To accept evolution generally requires, and demonstrates, an OPEN MIND as most of us had our heads filled with religion a DECADE before we heard of evolution and had to over-come our religious programing to accept evolution. I mean, duh!

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.

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…

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

This inevitably reminded me of:

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!

And also:

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

No, it was indeed Rev Lovejoy, when attempting to persuade Lisa that snake-whacking was mandated by Scripture.

Didn’t Homer also say it when he claimed one of the 10 Commandments was “Thou Shalt Not Take Moochers Into Thy Hut?

Robert Nowell via Amazon.com Wrote:

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.…

Three words, Mr. Nowell: equality under law. Also note that the only thing the DoI claims all men are endowed with by their Creator is rights, not aptitudes or characteristics.

> 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.

caerbannog Wrote:

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).…

Yeah. It’d be a little surprising if the troll attempt here were the first Nowell.

the first Nowell

Isn’t a bit early for xmas songs?

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”.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dave Thomas published on May 13, 2006 4:38 PM.

Still awaiting the evidence was the previous entry in this blog.

Another View of Johnson is the next entry in this blog.

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

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter