I have a thing for David Kelly dramas. Well, that one with all the chicks was lame, and Allie McBeal started to really get on my nerves, but the Practice and Picket Fences are solid gold. Well, not solid, but good. I loved the Practice for exposing the insanities in the death penalty system and thought it addressed our society in a very interesting way.
Boston Legal has bugged me a bit. Reminds me at times a little too much of LA Law, which I really started to hate at some point in time. But James Spader is so unbelievable in this one that I keep going back to it. The addition of Candace Bergin really helped here too, and Captain Kirk is perhaps the biggest scene stealer in the cast.
Anyway, digression, digression. The last two episodes have been great. Last week, the show talked about the killings in the Sudan and why Americans seem to not care--kind of in the same way they don't care about WMD. This week, was a debate on intelligent design v. evolution. Two great points--well, actually a great point, and a really funny line.
Great point: our society has kind of lost the art of intelligent rebuttal. Led by the Fox News Network, everyone is in a hurry to say that every point has an equally valid alternative point, regardless of its stupidity. With Fox News and actually network news as a whole, the Swift Boat Veterans (proven liars in numerous cases) were put against Kerry's war record (boring guy who drones on and probably flip-flopped a few times but WAS ACTUALLY A WAR HERO) as if they were equal in merit. They weren't. In tonight's episode, the idea that you can put intelligent design (untestable and theological concept to boot) on an equal footing with evolution (testable and flawed, but still TESTABLE) is annoying. We have the same bizarre debates over America's Christian Roots, and even in the American South over the role slavery played in the Civil War (that's right, some people think the south would have seceeded over internal improvements). Those aren't equal and we should stand up and say something about that. In the case of the Intelligent design/evolution, I have no problem with talking about God's role in creation as a deeply important theological idea, but putting it in a science class bugs me. Just as I don't want to teach an American history class where I would be forced to say that God played a role in our founding. That would probably make me mad. Or something.
Ok, Really Funny Line: Candace Bergin's character, talking about evolution said, "who among us didn't believe seriously in evolution when watching the Presidential debates?" Or something like that. See, humor? And that one, I believe is a shot at Bush, but Kerry gets some of it on him too.
2 comments:
"evolution (testable and flawed, but still TESTABLE)"
Not sure what you mean by "flawed". Evolution is supported by all known facts and contradicted by none. It has been standing up to scrutiny for 150 years. It also has practical applications, and indeed, is testable, and verifiable.
If Evolution is "flawed", then so are all other sciences. Evolution is, as a matter of fact, one of the most solid scientific theories there is.
I'm glad you realize that mixing religion and science doesn't work, though. Devout Catholic and well known Evolution proponent Ken Miller thinks the same. As does the Clergy Project, and thousands of other religious people who accept Evolution, and realize that Intelligent Design is pure religion.
Since I wrote this 3 years ago, I have no idea what I meant either.
Post a Comment