Nick Matzke posted Entry 1829 on December 23, 2005 12:18 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1824

2005-12-23_ID_Kong.jpg

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.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #64409

Posted by Rich on December 23, 2005 12:31 PM (e)

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

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

Comment #64413

Posted by Piggy's got the conch on December 23, 2005 12:42 PM (e)

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.

Comment #64423

Posted by Rich on December 23, 2005 1:02 PM (e)

Think I found it on video..

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player05.html?122205/hc_behe_122205&Hannity_Colmes&God%20vs.%20Darwin&acc&Hannity%20%26%20Colmes&-1&exp

Comment #64425

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on December 23, 2005 1:03 PM (e)

Here it is:

http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/PCbest7.asp

Enjoy!

Comment #64427

Posted by Rich on December 23, 2005 1:10 PM (e)

Transcript here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179604,00.html

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

Comment #64431

Posted by Liz on December 23, 2005 1:16 PM (e)

It was drawn by Gary Varvel of the Indianapolis Star News

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051222/OPINION02/312220001/1093

Comment #64439

Posted by Tice with a J on December 23, 2005 1:26 PM (e)

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

Comment #64458

Posted by Steviepinhead on December 23, 2005 1:55 PM (e)

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

Comment #64464

Posted by Andrew McClure on December 23, 2005 2:05 PM (e)

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… :)

Comment #64465

Posted by Miguelito on December 23, 2005 2:05 PM (e)

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.

Comment #64466

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on December 23, 2005 2:05 PM (e)

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]

Comment #64468

Posted by Steviepinhead on December 23, 2005 2:20 PM (e)

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!

Comment #64472

Posted by Mr Christopher on December 23, 2005 2:38 PM (e)

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.

Comment #64486

Posted by Joe Shelby on December 23, 2005 3:10 PM (e)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20051223/cx_tt_uc/tt20051223 – Tom Toles of the Washington Post gets it right, too.

Comment #64494

Posted by Bob O'H on December 23, 2005 3:38 PM (e)

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

I’ll be wearing a helmet on Sunday.

Bob

Comment #64524

Posted by Lenny's Pizza Guy on December 23, 2005 4:59 PM (e)

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!

Comment #64543

Posted by Tony on December 23, 2005 7:22 PM (e)

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.

Comment #64552

Posted by bill on December 23, 2005 7:53 PM (e)

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

Comment #64555

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on December 23, 2005 8:05 PM (e)

Here’s another good one:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20051223/cx_tt_uc/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.”

Comment #64616

Posted by harry eaton on December 24, 2005 9:06 AM (e)

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?

Comment #64654

Posted by sir_toejam on December 24, 2005 2:39 PM (e)

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.

Comment #64707

Posted by Rich on December 24, 2005 7:55 PM (e)

Does Behe really think his audience is that dumb?

IT WAS ON FOX!

Comment #64708

Posted by sir_toejam on December 24, 2005 8:00 PM (e)

Well, I just came back from seeing the movie.

meh.

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.

Comment #64717

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 24, 2005 8:24 PM (e)

worth seeing, but don’t rush.

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

Comment #64724

Posted by Gerry L on December 24, 2005 8:46 PM (e)

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.

Comment #64773

Posted by drakvl on December 25, 2005 9:49 AM (e)

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.

Comment #64814

Posted by Chilean on December 25, 2005 1:52 PM (e)

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.