Pheobe Debates The Theory of Evolution

Original scene from the show... Friends. ^ | NA | NA

[Mr.Atos]

I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...

Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!

Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.

Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.

Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.

Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!

Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?

Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!

Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!

Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?

Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?

[Right Wing Professor]

My second observation is that there is a great schizm in the belief system of the defenders of man that can not be overcome because the two will NEVER be able to make each other agree. This begs the question... Do we need to agree on this

Probably we don't, as long as one side decides it's not a core issue for them. So libertarians can vote Republican because, drug legalization while philosophically important, is not a core issue for most of them (the others are too stoned to vote anyway); quite a few gays vote Republican because they figure homosexual marriage, while unlikely to be endorsed by the GOP in the near future, is something they can live without; I can vote Republican even though it means putting up with GWB's anemic stance on AA, domestic spending, immigration...better stop here so the premise remains true. However, as a scientist, the integrity of science - and that includes no imposing of extraneous agendas on the teaching of biology - is a core issue. Science is what I do. The moment the GOP adopts an anti-evolution platform is the moment I vote for the Ass party; a candidate who runs on the promise we'll have ID in the public schools has lost my vote, irrevocably. If it's also a core issue for the fundamentalists, then we'll have to go our different ways. If they can back off on this and concentrate on areas of agreement, we can hold together the coalition.

[Right Wing Professor]

I wasn't laughing at you, I was free associating. It's Friday afternoon, I'm allowed. Yes, I object to the perennial liberal premise that they're the elite few and we're the stupid many. I also resent any implication that evos gravitate to Dawkins politically. I admire his writings on evolution. I despise his politics.

[f.Christian]

I was just warning you ... they will cut your throat in a millisecond --- biggest PC bigots in the world evo ideology nazis !

[Mr.Atos]

What I am pointing out is that where government is concerned, the issue should NOT be a core issue for either side?

[Mr.Atos]

they will cut your throat in a millisecond

I guess I am still not following the point, nor the warning. The FR Evos will cut my throat (iow. turn on me). Why would they side with me in the first place (or I them). Why would tyhey turn on me if I did? And How would they manage to turn an attack on me... if I do not choose to be assaulted?

Please clarify your stance and what you mean.

[Right Wing Professor]

I think one of the irreducible properties of a core issue is that everyone decides for himself what is or is not a core issue. A large number of intrinsically conservative scientists (and most scientists, in my experience, are very conservative in their overall philosophy) who've told me they could never vote Republican because of the antiscientific influence of fundamentalists. This issue is losing us votes; and it's losing the last part of the Academy that the Right has any influence over.

Unlike you, I am not convinced civilization is compatible with all strains of Christianity. Opposition to evolution is based on unreason; and no civilization can exist without reason.

[f.Christian]

THe FR evos have a USSC monopoly and they are willing to defend it all costs !

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern age

[whattajoke]

ex,

I have respect for you and all that you've done in your life, despite our differences. I implore you to read up on the medved you defend. Please explain to me how you can agree with an obviously deranged person such as Ted.

http://www.bearfabrique.org/overview.html

[whattajoke]

Whatta joke!!!

You raaaaaannngg? j/k

[whattajoke]

The idea of eternal dirt is "scientific"... The idea that dirt created itself is "science...." The idea that dirt created life reveals great intelligence.

Please direct me to anything in any scientific (read: non creationist) book/site/etc in which the idea that dirt is anything more than dirt. Thank you in advance.

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

Dakmar...

I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.

fC...

These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Dakmar...

Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.

452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar

[whattajoke]

do yourself a favor and ignore f.c's posts. You'll quickly come to realize they are the ravings of a loon. In fact, all you have to do is check his profile as he's posted everything he ever has and ever will post right there. I challenge you to understand any of it.

[whattajoke]

not really worth the time or effort... but figger I owe ya one, ping.

[Mr.Atos]

I am not convinced civilization is compatible with all strains of Christianity.

And yet, if you are indeed a scientist, then you must also rely to some degree of emperical evidence. Historically speaking, that would suggest (at least form a cultural anthropological standpoint) that Christianity had a significant influence and supremacy of Western Civilization. My background (as far as science) goes is Archaeology, but I am sure there are theologians out there who could help make this point with a significant degree of studied and informed civility... the point being that philosophical notions that contributed to defining the primacy of individual existences as ultimately manifested in the Constitution (The pinnacle document in human civilization) were not possible in absense of Christian tradition. So I consider your conclusion in that reagrd to be flawed. Irregardless, the legitimacy of your point does not change the fact that your stance does not negate my significance in regards to my rights as identified by the Constitution and recognized by this government.

[f.Christian]

You are on a conservative republican site but do to some oversight there's a mean pretty wide long nest of liberal fascist virulent cancer growing streak of psuedoscience nazis here !

Ask ' goodseedhomeschool ' about them ... oh sorry --- gone !

[exmarine]

I'm not a Medved fan.

[whattajoke]

yes, yes... ask us about goodseed. while she is/was indeed a sweet lady, she is hung up on the idea that dinosaurs live amongst us in 2003. (among other absurdities). When confronted with certain questions and refutations, she gathered up her Hovind "arguments" and ran home.

[CobaltBlue]

>>What if said object was paid for by private money, and none of your taxes were involved?<<

If the object, whatever it is, is on public property, taxes are involved in a number of ways, not just the purchase price. There is the price of the property, e.g. the massive Ten Commandment statue in Georgia takes up a significant amount of space, which isn't free. And there is the cost of maintenance.

And then there's the endorsement problem. It's a violation of my rights if your religion is endorsed by the state.

[f.Christian]

mr a ...

And How would they manage to turn an attack on me... if I do not choose to be assaulted?

Please clarify your stance and what you mean.

fC ...

You are advocating tolerance and they forbid -- punish it !

You're new - naive around here !

[Sloth]

I have no problem with people who accept evolution as a scientific principle. I have a big problem with those who treat it as a religion, claiming that it proves that there was no intelligent Designer, for example.