So The Daily Show had their "Evolution? Schmevolution!" week (yeah, we know it was two weeks ago already), and we watched dutifully, expecting some great takedowns of the sheer dumbosity of creationism and "Intelligent Design," which is just creationism cleaned up to look like a bible-thumper with a mathematics degree (a disguise which is by no means successful).

We watched. And boy...were we disappointed.

To be fair, we expect a lot out of Jon Stewart and the Daily Show folks. We're being exceptionally critical, here, because we expect so much — as opposed to Bill Maher or Penn & Teller, who all have their own particular topics with regard to which they seem to take leave of their otherwise logical senses (like being anti-vaccinations, pro-PETA, or pro-Libertarianism, to name a few). This is not to say that Jon and the gang don't have their own logical lapses, but if they do, they hide them remarkably well. On the one hand, as Jon has pointed out before, this is a show that followed puppets making prank calls; so perhaps it's unfair to expect so much of them. But on the other hand, they set the standard, because they have been so good, in so many ways, on so many issues — so we can't help but expect the best from them. Therefore, "Evolution? Schmevolution!" left a lot to be desired.

Jon made a quick comment towards the end of the week, suggesting that they didn't have enough material to do "a whole week" of evolution pieces. We half agree — we agree that they didn't get enough material (heck, they didn't even fill one 22 minute episode with evolution stuff), but the problem is that there is certainly enough material out there to get, if you're planning on doing a special series like this. Instead, they added a bunch of fluff (like an interview with Gwyneth "I won an Oscar for portraying four different characters in precisely the same way" Paltrow) and kept up to date on current events. Hey, they're welcome to do with their show as they wish — but with all the hype surrounding the E?S! week shows, we were expecting something different. More interviews, more experts, more in-depth coverage; perhaps a mention of the "Wedge Document," a look into the Discovery Institute; something. Hell, if preserving the entertainment value was their primary goal, a trip to one of the creationism museums which feature dinosaurs wearing saddles would have both drawn a laugh and made a good point. The point is that there is a lot that they could have done...but didn't.

What did we get? A few short, funny pieces on evolution, some of which pointed out the ridiculous nature of creationist "theory," some of which perpetuated the misinformation for which the creationists themselves are notorious. A couple of interviews, including a "panel discussion" (which we'll get to in a moment) featuring "experts" on the subject. Some clever one-liners, here and there. And an excellent rant from Lewis Black.

In our opinion, Lewis Black's segment was the highlight of the whole week — he was appropriately angry (as he always is), and his clips emphasized the sheer insanity of folks like Mister Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham, and the good "doctor," Kent Hovind. Black's final remark did a good job of summing up one of the major problems: "When you try too hard to apply science to religion, both come off looking ridiculous."

One of the most disappointing segments of the whole week was the panel discussion between lawyer and history professor Ed Larson, infamous Intelligent Design hack William Dembski, and absolutely fucking batshit insane creepy New Age guru Ellie Crystal. In a subtle but unnoted move, the three were arranged precisely in that order — perhaps, we were hoping, to emphasize the gradual decay (or, in our opinion, the sharp dropoff) in scientific standards and evidentiary foundation as you wander from Larson's end of the table towards wacky Crystal lady's end. However, this arrangement may have simply been happenstance, as the linear progression was in no way called out by Jon Stewart.

Ed Larson, while quite knowledgeable on the subject, came across as somewhat stiff and not particularly telegenic, which was unfortunate. In addition, while he did interject a few good points here and there, and certainly knew what he was talking about, he made the fatal mistake that so many scientists make in public fora when opposing creationists — he tried to debate the science. That's simply not the way to go about this — in scientific terms, there is no debate between creationists and those who understand the theory of evolution. The entire "battle," such as it is, is a political one, not an academic or scientific one. Being a lawyer and a professor of history, Larson was in a key position to make this point; but he didn't, and therefore didn't make the invaluable contribution to the discussion which we were hoping he would.

Dembski was his usual bullshit artist self, using the standard "Intelligent Design" tactics: jump from one vague and unsubstantiated example to another, hoping that you're moving too fast for anyone to notice how flawed your arguments are, and assuming that nobody in the audience is scientifically adept enough to see the logical and fundamental errors in your musings. Jon was far too lenient with this bullshit; the only positive note came when Jon got Dembski to admit that his religious conversion came along before his "realization" of the "truth" of creationism — er, sorry, William: "Intelligent Design." This came as no shock to us. Since we have a keen interest in cognitive development, particularly in children, we would state unequivocally that human beings are natural scientists, understanding the necessity of cause, effect and consistency, and recognizing the efficacy of natural explanations for natural phenomena; and it is religion that must be foisted on an innocent human's mind to warp their understanding of the universe and their innate knack for the scientific method.

There was one moment...one brief, shining moment...where we thought the panel discussion might actually get interesting. After Ellie Crystal spouted off the most remarkably pathetic diatribe on "matrices" and other bullshit concerning her own creation beliefs (there must have been some "resonances" and "vibrations" in there somewhere, too), Jon turned to Ed Larson and asked, "Now, why shouldn't that be taught in schools?" Here's the problem: Larson isn't the one Jon should have asked — Dembski is. The real question is: Dembski, if we should teach your unscientific beliefs (which you dress up as science with fancy words and formulae) in a science class, why shouldn't we teach Ms. Crystal's unscientific beliefs (which she dresses up as science with fancy words and formulae) in a science class, as well? Why do we not teach all creation myths in science class?

The answer is, of course, because the New Age folks don't have the political pull that the fundamentalists have. Because, again, that's what this is about: not science, but politics. The fundies want control; they know that pushing their way into the public school systems is an element of that control. They don't care about "fair and equal" representation; they just care about their "fair and equal" representation. So, in essence, it's "fuck the crystal New Age folks" (and anybody else) — the fundies just want their bullshit shoved into all of our faces.

Unfortunately, Jon never directed this question toward Dembski, and in fact never let Larson answer either — he instead jumped right on to the next talking point. Too bad — we would have been interested to hear what Dembski had to say to this. If he said that Ellie's fluffy New Age shit should be taught under the umbrella of "Intelligent Design," it would have exposed ID for the load of crap that it is. After all, anything that can emcompass "balls of energy" with "twelve grids around one" in the manner of the "sacred geometry" leading us to the realization that we all live in a "virtual reality" is pretty clearly horseshit. Since we didn't hear any mention of a designer of any sort in Ellie's laughable story, it is unlikely that Dembski would have lumped her beliefs in with "Intelligent Design" — but he might have answered that it should be taught as part of the "teaching the controversy" claptrap. If he'd done that, he would have exposed the already silly catchphrase "teaching the controversy" for the misleading spin that it really is. Again, that would have been a nice point for rational people everywhere. If, however, he said it shouldn't be taught, we would have loved to have heard just how he defended that position without seeming to favor the mainstream religions. To us, it seems that — had Jon held Dembski's feet to the fire just a little — any answer he gave would have made ID look pretty bad. Sadly, we never got the chance to hear that answer.

And that's the thing — part of our problem with the panel discussion was that Jon didn't, well, "nail" Dembski and call him on his bullshit. Now, we do understand, as Jon himself has explained, that he tries not to confront his guests or directly oppose them to their faces. However, the Daily Show is constantly making fun of politicians (as well as other bullshit artists...John Edward on Terri Schiavo ring a bell?) and punching up their mistakes with merciless delight — and then Jon tones it down when those same politicians come to do an interview. That's understandable, and makes it perfectly fair that he not confront Dembski when the guy is right there in the studio. Unfortunately, for some reason, the whole week of episodes was remarkably sparse in acerbic wit and carefully constructed takedowns of creationists; we didn't expect Jon to nail Dembski to his face, but when he wasn't in the studio, why not point out how absolutely wrong the crap he spewed was? For example, look at how Jon approaches Zell Miller: perfectly pleasant and even quite warm with him when they're on screen together, but snarky and outright insulting when reporting on Miller's current activities (such as an appearance at Justice Sunday II). We're just unsure why Dembski specifically — and creationists in general — seemed to have merited some special immunity to the Daily Show's full disclosure style; and we weren't happy about that.

Indeed, the whole evolution week concept was rather sparse and ineffective, and could have been done a whole lot better. Jon and his folks can do better than this; we give it a C.

Overall, I agree that E/S week was less than hoped for, but do give credit where credit is due. The piece Ed Helms did from Dayton, that treated the entire town as if it was Colonial Williamsburg...

That was hilarious.

Agreed, Shawn — that was a good piece. Of course, the punchline summed up the point nicely: "If it were real, it would be fucking terrifying."

Personally, I'd give it a "D." Part of the problem, I think, is that Stewart--as brilliant as he is--isn't a science geek; The Daily Show has often managed to annoy me whenever a science topic comes up and Stewart takes a "What's the point/Who cares?" attitude towards achievements like the Mars rovers. Another part of the problem is that Stewart has a tendency to look for middle ground--which might be commendable when you're talking to Senator McCain or former Senator Edwards about the Federal budget or the Iraq War, but is utterly the wrong way to deal with a subject where there is no middle ground. Scientists and IDers can't just cozy up as friends and agree to disagree or find a nice compromise position--it's the kiss of death for reason.

Having said that, Lewis Black's bit was an A+, as always. Ed Helms' piece, however, was too depressing to truly be funny. I wanted to laugh, but it really was "fucking terrifying."

Damn! I can't wait to get Cable again...

We certainly agree with your assessment, Eric. There is an unfortunate trend amongst entertainers towards perpetuating the stereotype of science — and, by extension, scientists — as being "uncool" or "irrelevant" to the Average Joe. The entertainers have an image to maintain, and they want to play to the lowest common denominator to make certain of the strength of their ratings, and thereby keep those advertising dollars flowing into their budgets and salaries. Even if they actually understand and support scientific endeavors, it just isn't hip enough for the Prime Time crowd. It's sad, but true.

Even more sad is the fact that Jon tends to fall into this behavior sometimes as well (his report on the recent giant squid discovery comes to mind, here). And honestly, if he feels that way about science, then perhaps he shouldn't have tried to do a week-long series on a scientific topic.

We also agree that there simply is no middle ground between scientists and proponents of "Intelligent Design" — no matter how hard Jon Stewart may look for it. We think that Jon's tendency to aim for that middle ground, combined with the fact that there was none in this case, added up to quite a bit of aimless floundering and pointless chatter. You nailed that one right on the head.

There I was all set to also mention Jon Stewart's recent and rather poor performance with that Robinson lady.

In the back of my mind I was wondering why I had not seen any of this in last weeks Daily Show, but thought that could be down to the cut down version we get over here. Then I saw the date, 2005???

Yet I just got a notification for this rant in my in-box, weird.

It was a poor performance though and remarkably uninformed on his part. I know he is no attack dog to his studio guests but he basically pandered to her airy accomodationism and let her warble on. I expected more than that stupid assertion that everyone, even scientists all go on faith as the religious understand the term.

Yeah, my bad, Darth — I hate our automatic notifications, which have gotten "reset" for every entry whenever we've updated or migrated the blog software. So when I'm reading an old Rant for a specific reference, and feel the urge to correct a typo, I accidentally notify the entire fucking world. I think I've mentioned in previous threads that I cringe when I see typos, especially mine, and if I can do something about them, I do.

I extend an apology for my typOCD to anybody who saw the notification and assumed we were Ranting anew.

Of course, the reason for my checking out this old Rant was obviously because of Jon's recent poor showing regarding "science as faith." Survey says? No. Wrong, Jon.

Skeptico does a great job of exploring the problems with the interview in question, and Jon's take on science and religion in general, and inspires a very enjoyable thread from some of the Two Percent Company's favorite denizens of the blogosphere. PZ does a slightly less great job, and inspires a somewhat less enjoyable thread. (I just get a more "black and white" vibe from the Pharyngula thread, whereas the Skeptico thread displays a more measured and reasonable reaction in general. And also: are Pharyngula's commenters insane, suggesting PZ go on Colbert's show? I find Colbert funny, but I find his interviews excruciating, because he's so "in character" that an intelligent guest almost never has a chance to make a decent point.)

Your mileage may vary, but I wrote Jon Stewart off a long time ago when it comes to scientific or religious topics (like when we wrote this very Rant!). On political and media issues, and even financial issues (though he self-deprecatingly claims otherwise), I trust Jon to nail things with uncanny accuracy and humor; on science and religion, I know better, so this recent gaffe didn't really surprise me.

As with anything, the Two Percent approach seems to work well here: you can still take the good stuff Jon has to offer without writing him off completely because of his flaws. No need to shitcan the man; I just tune out when he tackles science or religion, just like I do when he interviews 98% of the "celebrities" who come on the show.

No apology needed, twas just odd when I finally noticed, as if reading about stuff that rang no bells was not clue enough. At least I know why and can double check the date of any other notification.

I caught the coverage on both spots and I have now also learned not to expect much when he delves into religion or science; still, no ones perfect.