South Park

| 37 Comments

It looks like tomorrow’s South Park is going to include a challenge on the teaching of evolution.

Cartman’s plan to propel himself into the future goes horribly wrong in an all-new “South Park” premiering Wednesday, November 1 at 10:00 p.m. on Comedy Central. South Park Elementary faces strong opposition to the topic of evolution being taught to the 4th graders. The most vocal protests are from Ms. Garrison who has to teach it. Eric Cartman can’t be bothered with what’s going on in class. He’s busy manipulating his own personal time-line to align with the precise release date of the newest, hottest game.

I hope Colorado Citizens for Science and Colorado Evolution Response Team are ready to defend science eduction for the students of South Park, Colorado.

37 Comments

It’s South Park, I’m sure both sides will end up looking bad (should be funny though).

The only real question is, which side will end up getting covered in poop, or sodomized by baboons, before the credits roll?

Trust me, it is the creationists who will get sodomized by baboons, not the pro-evolution side. They already had an episode this season where one of the kids says something like “we don’t know everything about evolution but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.”

From a previous episode:

Stan: Cartman, you don’t know anything about Christianity! Cartman: I know enough to exploit it.

Remind you of anyone?

Yes, that would be “The Mystery of the Urinal Deuce”, which compares (accurately) the dishonesty of 9/11 denial with the dishonesty of evolution denial.

That episode also, unsurprisingly, revolves around a specific piece of poop.

This will be briliant. The Canadian guys behind South Park take no prisoners - and stupid American ideas are there favourite wipping boys. The creationists will take it up the ass. Please post the you-tube address of this episode, unless I get to it first. If you wish for an example of their total brilliance (Parker and Stone that is) check out “Team America World Police” and watch it with your teenagers. Cool as fuck. And one of the funniest films, guaranteed, you have ever seen. Bring it on South Park! Bizzarely, they are completely on the side of reason and ratioanality. Oh, and there is a totally amazing bit with a puppet of Kim Il Sung.…

Depend on it, this episode will be superb. The guys behind South Park, two Canadians, itas a witty rejoinder to all the crap going on in the US (and elsewhere). The creationists will take it up the ass, screaming. If you want to see how truly clever and witty these guye check out “Team America World Police” and watch it with your teenage children. Coolest mom/dad ever. Oh, and it’s hilarious about Kim Il Jung…oh, and the puppet sex scene.. I’ll try to post the you-tube when it’s available, unless you get there first.

hiero5ant asked:

The only real question is, which side will end up getting covered in poop, or sodomized by baboons, before the credits roll?

I knew it was going to be the atheists. It’s Richard Dawkins that gets a turd thrown in his face and then has sex with an ugly transexual.

Remember when Cartman figured out that if you shove food up your ass you’ll shit out your mouth? Everyone was becoming an atheist because the Catholic priests wouldn’t stop buggering boys and they were also shoving food up their asses as a new fad and so shitting out their mouths after making an atheist argument. The priest who battles the alien spiders and stops them by say something or other about “jesus message is just be nice to each other” then says something about “the shit that comes out of atheist’s mouths”?

They have no coherent arguments against atheism and they do seem to think religion is really just a message about being nice to each other.

Trey Parker & Matt Stone aren’t Canadians. They’re Coloradoans. They grew up just down the road from where I did, in the suburbs of Denver. There are certain South Park references that only suburban Denverites of a particular age get–why all the school buses say “R-1,” for instance, or why the guy who runs the planetarium sounds the way he does. Moral of the story: Canada has produced some fine comedy, but is not responsible for South Park.

Having just seen the end of the first episode of what now appears to be a multi-part series, I do concur that South Park is unlikely to be friendly to creationism. Thus far, Ms. (nee Mr.) Garrison has renounced evolution, then renounced the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then had sex with Richard Dawkins. The episode ended with Kyle saying that one could accept evolution and still believe in God: “what if evolution is the how, but not the why?”

I suspect that the evolution episodes of the (Coloradoan created) South Park will end up with some kind of non-overlapping magisteria moral, while making clear that creationism in science class, like cryogenically freezing oneself to score a new Nintendo game system, is a really bad idea.

Well, South Park has crudely and rudely pilloried everyone from Pat Robertson to Al Gore. Why not Richard Dawkins? It’s the atheists’ turn – the catholics, protestants, mormons, muslims, and everyone else has already taken flack. South Park is good at nothing if not exposing pretentiousness, and frankly, despite Dawkins’ many fine points as a science write and thinker, there is more than a little bit of pretentiousness in Dawkins when he gets on his high horse about religion.

What is funny as hell is to see the reaction of the evangelical atheists at Pharyngula (who have regularly picked fights with Ken Miller and many others on the evolution side who are insufficiently hostile to religion, at least according to PZ Myers). Basically they are saying that “South Park isn’t funny anymore.” They were clearly expecting the Christian fundamentalists to get the abuse once again, but instead it was their man. Priceless.

If Dawkins had stuck to biology and evolution, this never would have happened. But he just had to go on an international tour preaching atheism, and he and his science=atheism “disciples” just had to shriek to everyone that would listen that all religion everywhere is not just wrong, but evil, and that everyone with a milder position is just as bad. This is hysterical and overblown, and this is what gets you made into the villian-of-the-week on South Park.

I will admit first that I rarely watch South Park on its first run, mostly watching with friends on DVD or when recommended reruns are on. I have watched some spoofs that I thought were brilliant (Mormons, Scientology, hurricane Katrina) and have turned off many episodes due to excessive stupidity. This recent episode is one of those I would have turned off if I were not so interested in the topic. Richard Dawkins’ book The Ancestor’s Tale taught me so much. I was upset to see him have shit thrown at him and have sex with that transsexual. I think they were so hard on Dawkins because he sometimes uses science to promote Atheism. I may be a prude, but I usually find very few redeeming qualities in South Park and I hope this is the last time it delves into science.

I saw this coming, and frankly I’m surprised so few of you did. The episode Normdoering described gave it away. Parker and Stone have never been totally about rationality. Their targets have always been anyone with the audacity to say that someone else is wrong.

And frankly, as one who has spent a lot more time watching the first four seasons on DVD than the new episodes, the general quality of the show has gone down a bit. The voices have become much more homogenized for one thing, and that intangible quality of humor known as “timing” just isn’t what it used to be. But it is still head and shoulders above most TV fare.

I mean come on, if you didn’t laugh at Garrison’s idiotic reaction to Dawkins’ lecture (acting like a monkey, complete with the requisite shit tossing) you are too much of a prude to be watching South Park in the first place.

The sequel will go something like this: Atheism became the mainstream ideology, with those favoring Dawkins’ variety wearing the phallic headpieces being the “Dicks”, with those favoring Garrison’s varient being the transgendered group (notice the attacking atheists are difficult to distinguish as male or female).

Cartman will then tell them how stupid they all are, and how they are just another religion, and they will then send him back, where he will confront Dawkins, telling him he is as much of a zealot as Pat Robertson, Dawkins will come to some simplistic realization that will make all in Atheismland vomit, and they will all join hands and sing “Tra la la”.

I thought the episode was hilarious. Lately SP has been light on the funny. This one had me cracking up.

The part where Dawkins buries and shakes his face in Ms. Garrison’s “boobs” had me literally rolling on the floor.

I also loved the futuristic atheists screaming “My science!” and “Science damn it!” as they get shot by the enemy atheists.

Can’t wait for the second installment.

Cryptic spoiler about this episode:

I, for one, welcome the arrival of our sea otter masters.

I felt dirty after watching the episode - and that is exactly why I watch South Park!

I think Richard Dawkins did well for himself. On lonely nights I have sometimes found my thoughts drifting to Mr Garrison…

Seriously though, one week SP can be the most bizarre and foul stuff on TV. The next week it can be some of the finest social and political commentary available.

MarkP Wrote:

those favoring Dawkins’ variety wearing the phallic headpieces being the “Dicks”, with those favoring Garrison’s varient being the transgendered group.

I thought the first group were the condom-heads and the second group were the dick-heads (look at the shape of their heads and bodies).

MarkP wrote:

Their targets have always been anyone with the audacity to say that someone else is wrong.

Then how do you explain the way they treat Ben Affleck? Who did he ever say was wrong? He has gotten worse than Dawkins (Afflect had sex with Cartman’s hand and is the child of two people who have butts for faces) and the only thing he ever did wrong was date and make a bad movie with Jennifer Lopez.

OK, pardon my sloppy use of language. I was referring to when they attack people for their views: it’s almost always about being “arrogant” enough to think you are right, rather than being irrational. That doesn’t exclude them thrashing people for being overhyped dumbasses as well.

It was a great episode. It exposes the folly of both creationism and evangelical atheism. The sexual relationship between Dawkins and Garrison, I think, does a nice job of showing how the two are really very similar in many respects. My only complaint is scene with the Catholic family protesting the teaching of evolution. That was dumb because the Catholic Church has no objections to evolution. Other than that, great episode, as usual.

normdoering Wrote:

They have no coherent arguments against atheism…

Well duh…IT’S A CARTOON SPOOF, not a philosophical treatise. You evangelical atheists don’t have much of a sense of humor, obviously. Criticising cartoons for not having coherent arguments! Sheesh. How square can you get?

Adam wrote:

Well duh…IT’S A CARTOON SPOOF, not a philosophical treatise.

Indeed it is a cartoon – but it could end this way, and would if I wrote it:

Dawkins slowly gets people thinking and becoming atheists. Meanwhile Cartman’s dream of the future ends when he wakes up in hell (he really died). Cartmen notices that God, the devil and Jesus are getting smaller (borrowing a concept from Terry Prachet) because the fewer people believe in them the weaker and smaller they get. They tell him they’re in danger of not existing, they are dying – it happened to Zeus and other gods – one they keep in a shoebox.

Cartman escapes back to Earth and (stealing a concept from Peter Pan) gets all the kids start claping and saying “I do believe in God. I do believe in God.” And God and the devil start getting bigger.

Then Dawkins reminds Cartman he’ll go to Hell if he succeeds. God admits that Cartman will have to go to hell no matter if he helps. So Cartman starts telling the kids to stop clapping and reminding them of what God belief means.

God and the devil and Jesus start shrinking again – they seem to disappear, but Butters rescues them and keeps them in a shoe box. He becomes the last believer.

It’s a tell-tale sign of a weak intellectual position when one makes up terms to describe one’s opposition. Thus we get “Islamo-fascists”, “Darwinists”, “Secular progressives”, and now, “evangelical atheists”. As one of many glaring available examples of how stupid that last term is, when was the last time some atheists showed up unannounced at your door looking to persuade you to believe as they do?

And as an added bonus, toss in a little hypocrisy for good measure: portrayals of Catholics must be accurate or else they are “dumb”, but expecting a coherent argument against atheism, if it is going to be criticized, implies one has no sense of humor.

when was the last time some atheists showed up unannounced at your door looking to persuade you to believe as they do?

Actually, they show up here at PT pretty often.

IT’S A CARTOON SPOOF

Gee, wasn’t there some OTHER group of people who got all pissed off because of a cartoon depiction of their religious leader . … . . ?

;)

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Oh, and before Norm starts sputtering again about how “bigoted” I am, let me remind everyone in the audience that I do not assert, and I do not accept, the existence of any god, gods, goddesses, or any other supernatural entity of any sort whatsoever.

Normie tends to forget that once in a while.

Lenny said: Actually, they show up here at PT pretty often.

There’s a world of difference between debating a point on a discussion board and showing up at someone’s house at 11 a.m. on a Sunday to convert them, as you surely know as well as I do. Then there’s ignoring science in favor of one’s ideology, shunning those who disagree, etc., all FAR more prevalent among believers than nonbelievers

What those brandishing the “evangelical atheism” label can’t seem to get through their thick skulls is that atheism is not an ideology, it’s a lack of one. That’s the big reason there is so much less group activity among atheists - lack of belief in a god is not much of a tie that binds.

There’s a world of difference between debating a point on a discussion board and showing up at someone’s house at 11 a.m. on a Sunday to convert them

For some reason, several significant xtian sects think it’s perfectly acceptable to come unannounced to people’s homes and try to convince them to abandon their specific religious beliefs in favor of a different flavor of the same product, and most of the other sects seem to think it’s at least OK for the obnoxious proselytizers to give it a shot.

But imagine the anger, vehemence, and outright violence that would result if atheists started going door-to-door trying to convince people to abandon their superstitions altogether. They would be verbally abused, physically attacked, and people would likely be killed. I’m sure there would be outcry to make the practice illegal altogether–likely in the hypocritical name of religious freedom.

Why is that?

You are all the retarded offpring of five monkeys having buttsex with a fish-squirrel, congratulations!

MDPotter, another false positive in the Search for Terrestrial Intelligence.

There’s a world of difference between debating a point on a discussion board and showing up at someone’s house at 11 a.m. on a Sunday to convert them, as you surely know as well as I do.

Alas, for the people I’m thinking of, that difference is one of means, not of ends.

As I’ve said before, there are three different classes of atheists:

(1) weak atheists, who don’t think there is a god (2) strong atheists, who are sure there is no god, and (3) evangelical atheists, who not only are sure there is no god, but won’t rest until everyone *else* thinks so too

They are the flip side to the fundie coin. Yin to their yang. Under the feathers, they’re the same bird. Preachers is preachers. No matter what they’re preaching.

Speaking of schadenfreude Colorado style (for the uninitiated “SouthPark” is the old name for the town of Fairplay) Ted Haggard-you remember him-he’s the megachurchy evangelical direct pipeline from God to Dubya who chastised Richard Dawkins for being “arrogant” and then gave him the bum’s rush off his church property when he decided he didn’t like the slant of Dawkins’ documentary–in Colorado Springs (motto: where Genghis Khan is considered to be a liberal) has stepped down from his presidency of the National Association of Evangelicals when it was disclosed that one of his faith based initiatives was to fund a male uh..escort to take a stern approach to his sexual identity crises every month for three years! A huge opponent of any Gay rights anything–what a hypocrite. The gay sex doesn’t bother me as much as the fact that he uses the political system to push his personal religious beliefs to get taxpayer moneys to fund his programs that continue the evangelization and support of the right wing agenda and the church pays no income taxes for any of this. His only concession so far is that he bought methamphetamine but he “threw them away” (the didn’t inhale defense). More excitement to follow- inquiring minds want to know!

Speaking of schadenfreude Colorado style (for the uninitiated “SouthPark” is the old name for the town of Fairplay) Ted Haggard-you remember him-he’s the megachurchy evangelical direct pipeline from God to Dubya who chastised Richard Dawkins for being “arrogant” and then gave him the bum’s rush off his church property when he decided he didn’t like the slant of Dawkins’ documentary–in Colorado Springs (motto: where Genghis Khan is considered to be a liberal) has stepped down from his presidency of the National Association of Evangelicals when it was disclosed that one of his faith based initiatives was to fund a male uh..escort to take a stern approach to his sexual identity crises every month for three years! A huge opponent of any Gay rights anything–what a hypocrite. The gay sex doesn’t bother me as much as the fact that he uses the political system to push his personal religious beliefs to get taxpayer moneys to fund his programs that continue the evangelization and support of the right wing agenda and the church pays no income taxes for any of this. His only concession so far is that he bought methamphetamine but he “threw them away” (the didn’t inhale defense). More excitement to follow- inquiring minds want to know! I hope I dont multipost this but I no longer can tell when a posting has gone thru.

I’m really beginning to hate this server. I apologize if there are multiple posts. More Colorado Excitement in the news. Ted Haggard-remember him? -He’s the supercalifragevangelistic megachurchy Colorado Springs (motto: where Genghis Khan is too liberal) pastor and direct pipeline from God to Dubya that chastized Richard Dawkins for being arrogant and then gave him and his film crew the bum’s rush off his church property has stepped down from his leadership position in the National Assn. of evangelicals. It seems that one of his faith based initiatives was to fund a male uh..escort on a monthly basis over a 3 year perod to take a stern approach to his sexual identity issues. So far he has only admitted to buying methamphetamines from this professional but “throwing them away” Keep tuned folks, inquiring minds want to know!

I hope I’m not the only one who struggles with this posting system I can’t tell if anything ever goes thru. Along this thread of strange Colorado goings on and Richard Dawkins is the saga of Ted Haggard. This is the supercalifragevangelistic megachurch pastor in Colo. Springs in the Dawkins video who chastized him for “arrogance” and then had his heavies throw Dawkins and his film crew off his church property. It seems he has stepped down from his exalted Evangelical leadership position after it was disclosed that one of his faith based initiatives was to fund a male uh.. escort to take a stern approach to his sexual identity issues.

Lenny wrote:

They are the flip side to the fundie coin. Yin to their yang.

Really? Here’s a debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/a[…]3986,00.html

DAWKINS: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable—but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don’t see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.

That’s what Lenny calls a fundie atheist.

fnxtr: MDPotter, another false positive in the Search for Terrestrial Intelligence.

er, back at ya there Mr Consonants, just a quote from the episode, but thanks for your input! In case you were unaware, you’re an idiot:) Have a nice day.

fnxtr: MDPotter, another false positive in the Search for Terrestrial Intelligence.

er, back at ya there Mr Consonants, just a quote from the episode:)

Here’s your 2 cents back, go buy a vowel.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on October 31, 2006 10:58 PM.

PNAS: Evolution of complexity in signaling pathways was the previous entry in this blog.

The SciPhi Show, IslamOnline.net 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 4.361

Site Meter