• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

You can’t love your country only when you win.

This really is a full service blog.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

Today’s GOP: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

It’s time for the GOP to dust off that post-2012 autopsy, completely ignore it, and light the party on fire again.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

A lot of Dems talk about what the media tells them to talk about. Not helpful.

Republicans in disarray!

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

A Senator Walker would be an insult to the state and the nation.

Despite his magical powers, I don’t think Trump is thinking this through, to be honest.

Not all heroes wear capes.

“More of this”, i said to the dog.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

Republicans do not pay their debts.

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

The revolution will be supervised.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Science & Technology / George Will Gets Snarky

George Will Gets Snarky

by John Cole|  August 30, 20058:15 am| 51 Comments

This post is in: Science & Technology

FacebookTweetEmail

Mr. Will with some ‘intelligently designed’ snark:

This summer’s movie stars are not the usual bipeds, but other animals — emperor penguins and grizzly bears. Their performances are pertinent to some ongoing arguments.

“March of the Penguins” raises this question: If an Intelligent Designer designed nature, why did it decide to make breeding so tedious for those penguins? The movie documents the 70-mile march of thousands of Antarctic penguins from the sea to an icy breeding place barren of nutrition. These perhaps intelligently but certainly oddly designed birds march because they cannot fly. They cannot even march well, being most at home in the sea…

The penguins’ hardiness is remarkable, as is the intricate choreography of the march, the breeding and the nurturing. But the movie, vigorously anthropomorphizing the birds, invites us to find all this inexplicably amazing, even heroic. But the penguins are made for that behavior in that place. What made them? Adaptive evolution. They have been “designed” for all that rigor — meaning they have been shaped by adapting to many millennia of nature’s harshness.

Read the whole thing. He is ‘ruthless’ to the idiot who was eaten by bears.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Ruthless Gangsta, Definition Villain
Next Post: The Levee Broke »

Reader Interactions

51Comments

  1. 1.

    Don Surber

    August 30, 2005 at 8:39 am

    Not as ruthless as the bear, however …

    Great column, ain’t it?

  2. 2.

    jobiuspublius

    August 30, 2005 at 8:45 am

    He’s preaching to the choir.

  3. 3.

    jobiuspublius

    August 30, 2005 at 8:50 am

    Evolution is Gods design. Darwin was mearly his mouth piece.

  4. 4.

    Joel

    August 30, 2005 at 9:23 am

    George Will and Werner Herzog (director of Grizzly Man) together at last. I never thought I’d see the day. Go see the movie though. It’s great. It’s a bit more than the “idiot gets eaten by bear” flick that George Will describes it as

  5. 5.

    DougJ

    August 30, 2005 at 9:40 am

    George Will is a RINO and has been for a while.. He never liked this president, never liked the evangelical movement. He’s nothing more than an northeastern intellectual with a bowtie and one or two conservative beliefs.

  6. 6.

    Darwin Award

    August 30, 2005 at 9:43 am

    Regarding the idiot who was eaten by the bear:

    Darwin always wins! :-)

  7. 7.

    Defense Guy

    August 30, 2005 at 10:06 am

    If only Darwin had been eaten by a bear.

  8. 8.

    ppGaz

    August 30, 2005 at 10:12 am

    George Will is a RINO and has been for a while.. He never liked this president, never liked the evangelical movement.

    Don’t know about his RINO status, but he’s been a whore and a shill and a water carrier for every manner of GOP and rightwing claptrap for many years. Is he disappointed at what it has brought him? Good. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving individual. He’s one of the engineers of the morph from traditional (Goldwater) conservatism to the social “values” conservatism that now grips the GOP. And he did it all with an arrogant, condescending and holier-than-thou tone that paved the way for the disgusting situation we find ourselves in now.

    May he rot in hell and may large festering sores inflame his groin.

  9. 9.

    Wiccan

    August 30, 2005 at 10:19 am

    If only Darwin had been eaten by a bear.

    The same can be said of the Baby Jesus

  10. 10.

    yet another jeff

    August 30, 2005 at 10:22 am

    Eaten by a bear, so Shakespearian….

    DJ, I think that any true Republican SHOULD dislike this president and the evangelical movement.

  11. 11.

    DougJ

    August 30, 2005 at 10:26 am

    If only Darwin had been eaten by a bear.

    That wouldn’t have helped. Some other leftie scientist would have concocted the crazy theory of evolution anyway.

  12. 12.

    tzs

    August 30, 2005 at 10:50 am

    DougJ, if you don’t like the scientific method, please refrain from using any of the goodies derived from it.

    This includes any pharmaceuticals, electric lights…modern engineering…and oh, by the way, shut your computer off NOW.

  13. 13.

    jobiuspublius

    August 30, 2005 at 10:53 am

    Defense Guy Says:

    If only Darwin had been eaten by a bear.

    Ah, mad scientist experiments on self, a classic, very Christ like.

  14. 14.

    jobiuspublius

    August 30, 2005 at 10:55 am

    DougJ Says:

    If only Darwin had been eaten by a bear.

    That wouldn’t have helped. Some other leftie scientist would have concocted the crazy theory of evolution anyway.

    The Lord works in mysterious ways. Ouch, exams make my head hurt.

  15. 15.

    capelza

    August 30, 2005 at 11:01 am

    DougJ..ever heard of Anaximander? Was he a lefty scientist?

    When Will wants to be, he is good, really good. I wish he’d spend more time writing like.

  16. 16.

    Defense Guy

    August 30, 2005 at 11:07 am

    Man, look what I started, I was just speculating. Why are you lefties so afraid of the conversation?

    Actually Darwin just helped to prove what was someone elses idea. He then, IMO, went a step too far.

  17. 17.

    Defense Guy

    August 30, 2005 at 11:10 am

    As to the baby Christ eaten by a Bear comment. Thats just wrong. After all a baby would only provide a snack to a full size grizzly, who would then have to seek out something more Darwin sized to fulfill his appetite.

  18. 18.

    capelza

    August 30, 2005 at 11:10 am

    Defense Guy, whose afraid of the conversation? What is the conversation anyway? Natural evoltution and adaption versus the invisible guy in the sky playing a cosmic version of Legos?

    Honestly, I’m asking how Darwin went too far?

  19. 19.

    yet another jeff

    August 30, 2005 at 11:10 am

    Huh? Well…not afraid of conversation, just thought it was funny. I stand by my comment. So there…heh.

  20. 20.

    jobiuspublius

    August 30, 2005 at 11:15 am

    Why go a step to far when you can just go off the deep end let the waves do all the work. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

  21. 21.

    jobiuspublius

    August 30, 2005 at 11:18 am

    Defense Guy Says:

    As to the baby Christ eaten by a Bear comment. Thats just wrong. After all a baby would only provide a snack to a full size grizzly, who would then have to seek out something more Darwin sized to fulfill his appetite.

    ROFLMAO You’re learning, perhaps, evolving?

  22. 22.

    Defense Guy

    August 30, 2005 at 11:21 am

    In no way do I wish to restart the whole G-d vs. Random Chance argument as the source of life on earth. My point, which I meant to make jokingly, was that natural selection and survival of the fittest are the theories that Darwins observations helped to prove. Great. Fantastic.

    Where I think he went to far is in the assumption that this means that life DID start from nothing and evolve from there. It COULD have, but it does not mean it DID.

    I will speak of this no further, heathans.

  23. 23.

    DougJ

    August 30, 2005 at 11:27 am

    DougJ..ever heard of Anaximander?

    No, who is he? I guess I could look on google but I’d rather have you explain it to me.

  24. 24.

    capelza

    August 30, 2005 at 11:38 am

    Defense Guy, Darwin made these assumptions?

    “In what manner the mental powers were first developed in the lowest organisms, is as hopeless as how life itself first originated. These are problems for the distant future, if they are ever to be solved by man.” From the “Descent of Man”.

    DougJ..nope, you can enter the name on Google…it’s easy, you go to Google, enter the name and Bob’s you uncle. I know that’s a big thing, actually looking things up for yourself, but it’s really not that hard. :)

  25. 25.

    Steve

    August 30, 2005 at 11:41 am

    I don’t recall that Darwin had a lot to say on the subject of the origins of life on Earth.

  26. 26.

    Defense Guy

    August 30, 2005 at 12:17 pm

    Universal Common Descent, from Origins of Species as well as Descent of Man. If it is not meant to refute creation, then perhaps I am missing something. If so, please be so kind as to tell me what it is.

  27. 27.

    yet another jeff

    August 30, 2005 at 12:22 pm

    That’s the whole problem…people mistakenly believing that Darwin or any evolution theory are actually refuting creation.

    I’m not seeing any place that Defense Guy said anything wrong, I thought it was funny in a Douglas Adams “God disappears in a puff of logic” kind of way.

  28. 28.

    jobiuspublius

    August 30, 2005 at 12:29 pm

    Creationism/ID is just another bait and switch, just like the Contract on America, “Elections” 2000/2004. These Creationists/IDers who criticise Evolution do so only to advance their own brand of non-sense.

  29. 29.

    Defense Guy

    August 30, 2005 at 12:35 pm

    Personally I like the Ben Franklin “the proof of G-d is in the beer” quote the best. Perhaps the rastifarians are on to something.

  30. 30.

    capelza

    August 30, 2005 at 12:36 pm

    Defense Guy, Darwin wrote from (the famous voyage of the BEagle to the Galapogos and the finches, etc.) observation that species adapted, evoleved, etc. He did NOT posit the origin of life.

    I think that is part of the problem. Many who so violently oppose Darwin have not read him (I’m not saying you haven’t). It was the “descended from monkeys” that got folks’ knickers in a twist from the start and they’ve been running scared ever since. I honestly believe that if Darwin had left out the idea of human beings descending from a common ancestor with the apes that his ideas would not have been met with such “outrage”. Darwin is just the bogeyman for the scientific theory.

    The idea that human beings aren’t “special” is the core of the whole conflict.

  31. 31.

    TheocracyIsComing

    August 30, 2005 at 12:44 pm

    Bait and switch is just on of their tactics. It is clear now that Bush’s huge push into federalizing education testing is just a vehicle to review state science curricula:

    http://www.sptimes.com/2005/08/28/State/Darwin_and_evolving_s.shtml

    This whole “teach the controversy” is a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is no controversy in the scientific community about Darwin. So you manufacture a controversy which itself becomes controversial and there you go, a populist means of getting creationism back into science class.

  32. 32.

    yet another jeff

    August 30, 2005 at 12:57 pm

    How would they test students in ID anyway? Would that be part of NCLB? Scantron tests of faith?

  33. 33.

    yet another jeff

    August 30, 2005 at 1:33 pm

    For accuracy’s sake:

    “Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”
    — Benjamin Franklin

  34. 34.

    Defense Guy

    August 30, 2005 at 2:10 pm

    Fair enough, it’s still a good quote.

    As I said before, Darwin made some awesome observations, but just took it a step too far. Other than that, you can mark me down as a fan.

    I try not to get sucked back into these conversations, but you pagans just won’t leave ia along. Banana eaters!

  35. 35.

    Sam Hutcheson

    August 30, 2005 at 2:17 pm

    Anaximander was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher whose writings could be interpreted as a precursor to modern evolutionary theory.

    Try not to confuse him with Anaxagorus. He just gets pissed off when you do that.

  36. 36.

    RSA

    August 30, 2005 at 2:30 pm

    I’m not seeing any place that Defense Guy said anything wrong, . . .

    Well, there’s this:

    My point, which I meant to make jokingly, was that natural selection and survival of the fittest are the theories that Darwins observations helped to prove.

    Science isn’t about proving theories; that’s the realm of logic and mathematics. It’s about building explanations that best fit our observations. Theories are always contingent; it could happen (though with probability approaching zero) that an alternative to the standard theory of evolution will come along tomorrow and change everyone’s mind. This may not be especially interesting for scientific research in practice, but it’s important to avoid a mindset that holds theories to be true, rather than to be supported by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, as evolution is. I mean, historically speaking, the majority of past scientific theories have been shown to be literally false (Newton’s theory of gravitation being one of the most obvious examples.)

  37. 37.

    Defense Guy

    August 30, 2005 at 2:35 pm

    RSA

    Which is a fantastic way to ensure proper use of terms, and is good for what exactly? After all we still launch spaceships into space assuming that the ‘theories’ will hold true one more time. So thanks for parsing so close, I will attempt to be exact in the future.

    So someone, using the exact proper terminology please explain to me how Universal Common Descent is NOT a refutation of creation. Thanks.

  38. 38.

    Veeshir

    August 30, 2005 at 2:39 pm

    Eaten by a bear, so Shakespearian

    I would say that’s so Biblical.

    As for if Darwin was eaten by a bear, maybe a monk would have taken up the slack?

    This doesn’t look right in preview, but it looks right in Dean’s World’s preview so I’m hitting post. Wish me luck.

  39. 39.

    DougJ

    August 30, 2005 at 3:02 pm

    Anaximander was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher whose writings could be interpreted as a precursor to modern evolutionary theory.

    At the risk of sounding simplistic, ancient greek = gay = librul.

  40. 40.

    RSA

    August 30, 2005 at 3:05 pm

    Defense Guy wrote,

    Which is a fantastic way to ensure proper use of terms, and is good for what exactly?

    I didn’t intend any personal or even intellectual attack, of course. What I was trying to get at was that I think creationists and IDers tend to look at science as saying, “Here’s what we know is true.” Not coincidentally, they look at religion in the same way. Then when someone reads in the newspaper, “Scientists discover X, disproving previous theory,” they think, “Yet again something scientists thought was true is wrong. And science is confusing in any case. I think I’ll stick with the eternal truths of my faith.” This view is bad news for politically charged scientific theories like evolution, because some people will inevitably contrast open scientific questions with the certain answers that their religion gives. Getting around this, I think, requires that people have a more nuanced view of what science is about.

  41. 41.

    Defense Guy

    August 30, 2005 at 3:10 pm

    Most of those that fear/reject science are Amish and since they don’t have computers with which to defend themselves, isn’t it really just cruel to point out that internet p0rn is really something worth checking out. Poor backward buggy riding bastards.

    On the other hand, those hats they have are pretty fly.

  42. 42.

    docG

    August 30, 2005 at 3:16 pm

    So someone, using the exact proper terminology please explain to me how Universal Common Descent is NOT a refutation of creation. Thanks.

    Defense Guy, I doubt I can meet your request to your satisfaction, but here’s a thought or two. Science does not primarily concern itself with refuting superstition and mythology (hard science’s standard view of religion). Your question assumes a worldview that is not scientific in nature, and therefore cannot be answered as asked. If your primary assumption is that G-d created life, as outlined in Genesis, then likely you would see Common Descent and evolution as a challenge to that belief system. From a scientific viewpoint, Common Descent does not challenge or refute creationism anymore than it does the Tooth Fairy.

  43. 43.

    Defense Guy

    August 30, 2005 at 3:23 pm

    Your question assumes a worldview that is not scientific in nature, and therefore cannot be answered as asked. If your primary assumption is that G-d created life, as outlined in Genesis, then likely you would see Common Descent and evolution as a challenge to that belief system

    My question assumes nothing, it is a question. If you don’t know, just say so. Do not read anything into my words that is not there.

  44. 44.

    RSA

    August 30, 2005 at 3:43 pm

    Goddamned holier-than-thou Amish. I bet a good punch in the nose would teach ’em a lesson.

  45. 45.

    capelza

    August 30, 2005 at 3:51 pm

    DougJ Says:

    At the risk of sounding simplistic, ancient greek = gay = librul.

    bwahahahahahaa….

    So Democracy is gay and liberal, too?

  46. 46.

    carot

    August 30, 2005 at 9:39 pm

    Whit regard to Penguins, has anyone read Penguin Island by Anatole France. A priest get shipwrecked without his glasses and assumes Penguins are people. Quite good social satire about evolution and religion according to what he sees in penguins.

  47. 47.

    carot

    August 30, 2005 at 9:47 pm

    Here’s a quote from Penguin Island:

    “What is the good, my dear sir, of giving yourself so much
    trouble, and why compose a history when all you need do is to copy the
    best-known ones in the usual way? If you have a fresh view or an
    original idea, if you present men and things from an unexpected
    point of view, you will surprise the reader. And the reader does not
    like being surprised. He never looks in a history for anything but the
    stupidities that he knows already. If you try to instruct him you only
    humiliate him and make him angry. Do not try to enlighten him; he will
    only cry out that you insult his beliefs.
    “Historians copy from one another. Thus they spare themselves
    trouble and avoid the appearance of presumption. Imitate them and do
    not be original. An original historian is the object of distrust,
    contempt, and loathing from everybody.
    “Do you imagine, sir,” added he, “that I should be respected and
    honoured as I am if I had put innovations into my historical works?
    And what are innovations? They are impertinences.”
    He rose. I thanked him for his kindness and reached the door. He
    called me back.
    “One word more. If you want your book to be well received, lose no
    opportunity for exalting the virtues on which society is based-
    attachment to wealth, pious sentiments, and especially resignation
    on the part of the poor, which latter is the very foundation of order.
    Proclaim, sir, that the origins of property- nobility and police-
    are treated in your history with all the respect which these
    institutions deserve. Make it known that you admit the supernatural
    when it presents itself. On these conditions you will succeed in
    good society.”

  48. 48.

    Shygetz

    August 31, 2005 at 8:19 am

    So someone, using the exact proper terminology please explain to me how Universal Common Descent is NOT a refutation of creation. Thanks.

    Here goes. If by creationism, you mean the story in Genesis (or any other religious tradition), then yes, common descent directly refutes that. However, if you mean creationism in the more generic sense that an intelligent being created the first life on Earth, than no, the idea of common descent does not refute or support that. Common descent states that all life derived from a single organism–it holds no opinion on how that organism came to be.

  49. 49.

    Shygetz

    August 31, 2005 at 8:21 am

    DougJ=charaicature of evengelical right

    “Teh gay is teh Devil! Fear teh gay! Stoopid libruls!”

  50. 50.

    goonie bird

    August 31, 2005 at 10:18 am

    According to the evolutionist wackos all birds including pengiuns came from reptiles they came from dinosours what a lot of poppycock i mean unlike other birds penguins cant fly and the evolutionists are like a SNICKERS bar full of nuts

  51. 51.

    Shygetz

    August 31, 2005 at 1:51 pm

    i mean unlike other birds penguins cant fly…

    Except for the ostrich. And the kiwi. And the emu. And the…oh hell, I give up.

    goonie bird-“I don’t understand something, so it MUST be wrong! Stoopid quantum mechanics!”

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

2023 Pet Calendars

Pet Calendar Preview: A
Pet Calendar Preview: B

*Calendars can not be ordered until Cafe Press gets their calendar paper in.

Recent Comments

  • Immanentize on Open Thread: Al Capone Investigates Elliot Ness (Feb 8, 2023 @ 2:18pm)
  • FelonyGovt on Open Thread: Al Capone Investigates Elliot Ness (Feb 8, 2023 @ 2:17pm)
  • WaterGirl on Open Thread: Al Capone Investigates Elliot Ness (Feb 8, 2023 @ 2:17pm)
  • Paul in KY on Open Thread: Al Capone Investigates Elliot Ness (Feb 8, 2023 @ 2:15pm)
  • Qrop Non Sequitur on Open Thread: Al Capone Investigates Elliot Ness (Feb 8, 2023 @ 2:14pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Favorite Dogs & Cats
Classified Documents: A Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Front-pager Twitter

John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
ActualCitizensUnited

Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice   

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!