Comments on: The Great Leveler: Darwin, Garrison Keillor, and Wing Bowl

By: Wessexman

Wessexman — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:22:12 +0000

The problem with the evolution versus creation debate is that it is cast as the likes of YECs versus evolutionists. The evolutionists obvioiusly want to cast the anti-evolution ground as simply YECs and similar but us non-YECs anti-evolutionists too often let ourselves be presented as YECers or at best just as those who follow popularised, 19th century creationist theology whereas we have many cogent and telling metaphysical, theological, philosophical and indeed scientific arguments against evolution.

By: dgh

dgh — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:59:10 +0000

Gene, I wasn’t claiming that anyone things the evolutionary account is the only one. I was drawing attention to the irony of NPR using an evolutionary account of the sort of thing that goes on on their wavelength when it would make more sense of the programming on sports-talk radio.

By: Gene Callahan

Gene Callahan — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:29:49 +0000

dgh, you seem to be operating on the premise that if someone says, say, that conversation has evolutionary roots, that they are therefore restrained to giving evolutionary explanations as to why one conversation is better than another. That premise is false. That an evolutionary understanding of x is possible in no way implies that only an evolutionary understanding of x is possible.

By: dgh

dgh — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:08:31 +0000

Gene Callahan, oh great arbiter of points, what would you say to the folks at Wing Bowl, on Darwinian grounds, to get them to listen to Keillor, or to argue that their form of behavior is inferior to those who watch and listen to Prairie Home Companion?

By: Gene Callahan

Gene Callahan — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 21:34:17 +0000

Yes, SumGi is correct — just because music may have developed from, say, the rhythmic pounding of rocks to make arrowheads doesn’t mean that Beethoven is “nothing more” than rock pounding. And dgh, I can’t see that your “response” to SumGi had anything at all to do with this point!

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:54:15 +0000

Darwinism isn’t false just because you don’t like the implications of it.

By: Jacques

Jacques — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:08:50 +0000

Some of that time spent listening to morning sportstalk might be better spent listening to Rush if you really imagine he’s a “drive-by shout[er]“. After all, NPR’s Ira Glass recommends it:)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06Limbaugh-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=3

By: dgh

dgh — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 02:51:06 +0000

SumGi, so what is the prescriptive present for radio? Since more people listen to wing bowl than Keillor, and since the sexual nature of wing bowl is more important to the survival of the race and to the reproduction of males who will attend wing bowl, doesn’t that make sports-talk radio superior to NPR?

By: SumGi

SumGi — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 03:53:22 +0000

The problem being that evolutionary roots are just that, roots. It may be that our reaction to quality conversation is due to our ancient ancestors grooming rituals but that in no way shape and or form imply that the wing bowl and Keillor are the same. You’re conflating the descriptive past with the prescriptive present.

By: Old Life Theological Society » Blog Archive » When This and That Comes Home

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:20:59 +0000

[...] are a couple of thoughts for the front porch republican heart that beats within the average Old [...]

By: D.W. Sabin

D.W. Sabin — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:02:15 +0000

Pardon me Buster but Chimpanzees do not lick vermin off one another, they carefully examine their host before picking the assorted vermin off and popping it like a bon bon in their mouths, thus having a fine dinner conversation while copping feels.

Perhaps the phrase “descended from apes” is indeed apropos.Descent being the operative term for this lark we call modern civilization. It seems to me that the choice between an hour in a little monkey business vs. an hour listening to talk radio is a no-brainer. The baying across the airwaves is but a faint immitation of a proficient Silverback Pant Hoot.