The Great Debate 10/28/07
(32 downloads)Download this episode (49 min)
AJ tries his hand at podcasting again. As we did not break 25 downloads, no Doug in a tu-tu. Does Walt Witman pee in the shower? ELEPHANTS GONE WILD!!! Order your video soon. Doug argues evoution with himself. If you trick-or-treat without a costume, Doug has a gift for you. This week in history is mercifully short. No less than three countries were offended in the making of this podcast.
8 Comments:
Hey guys. Just listened to the latest episode. Thanks for the shout-out(s) and especially for the retracted retraction - that means a lot, Nate.
I must say that you actually produced an informative and thought-provoking episode. Remember that episode of Friends when Ross got all pissed off because Phoebe said she didn't believe in evolution? That's kind of how I'm feeling, except that Doug has a better beard than Lisa Kudrow and I'm much cooler than Ross. I have decided that you should retitle your show, or at least the last two episodes, "How to Orate, by Doug . . . with Nate." Isn't there a topic that you two legitimately, even mildly, disagree about? Even something like pro-American Idol vs. anti-American Idol? What can we do to get Nate fired up about an issue? Instead of starting the show off with beer, can we try at least one episode where Doug starts Nate's hair on fire and then starts arguing with him? I think your audience would like that.
Admittances? Is that how the pro-evolution bunch gets into the movie theater?
As one of your two dozen listeners, let me take this opportunity to apologize, on your behalf, to American Samoa, Wales, the Middle East, Canada, France, Mexico and Mongolia. Thank god your show doesn't really lend itself to an international audience or we might have a war on our hands.
Anyway, I really did find the show informative this time around. A few points of clarification, though. First, the fact that evolution is an assailable theory does not put it on common ground with creationism or intelligent design in a legal context. My limited research into the issue reveals that the Georgia case came about because, after keeping the origin of the species out of the curriculum for 25 years, the school finally purchased a textbook without ripping out the pages discussing evolution, and then the religious right swooped in with a sticker disclaimer to try to balance things out. And like it or not, we do not teach religion in public schools, and the judge in that case rightly understood that the disclaimer was the conservative religious establishment's way of saying: hey kids, we know what you're about to read, and we want you to know that it's a bunch of bunk, because God made you on Thursday, the day after he made the oceans. And in Pennsylvania, they were actually starting off the evolution class by reading a statement about intelligent design. While blind faith in a scientific theory is a bad idea, there are more germane risks on the table here. But those are just my two cents on the issue.
I can only imagine how thrilled Erika will be to learn that she is a librarian. Will make her master's degree seem sort of trite, but who doesn't love the opportunity to levee a fine.
Totally with you on requiring trick-or-treaters to wear a costume. Am troubled by the fact that you permitted your daughter to go out as the Tooth Fairy. You know that's how those guys that slip you roofies in a bar and then steal your kidney start out, right?
Finally, you all need to start drinking a beer that gets past the first sip. This week's brand was Polluted Lake Water? What's wrong with you guys?
Anyway, thanks for another entertaining listen. Excited for the next episode.
And for the record, I only pee in the shower when it is an emergency.
Hi, guys! Thanks for addressing my question as to whether or not everyone pees in the shower. I feel gratified and vindicated by your eminently wise verdict. And, for your information, though your notion that pee runs down women's legs is a common misperception, it is, nonetheless, a misperception. The drain is in the center of my shower and the pee goes straight in.
Agree with your point that institutions should be open to all theories and not be wedded to one - which is why I would like to see churches say "Ok, what we preach is one option for enlightenment, but let's be open to other ones - AND to other people who have different ideas of what salvation means."
Am, indeed, thrilled to be a librarian. Nate, nice to meet you, I'd like to think I am a wonderful girl - I'm a fellow shower-peer, so that's a step in the right direction, right?
And, because I know he's reading - Hi, Todd! Enjoy reading your posts. I know I owe you an email - promise it's forthcoming.
Hello. Ok, so I listned to the podcast, and I even set up a little guarentee to make sure that I listned for more than three minutes...I played the podcast while I took a shower (and no, I did not pee in the shower).
It's a fun podcast so far, but I'm telling you that you need cartoons or video to keep highly distractable folks like me amused. Ooh, I gotta go...I hear a fire truck!
Claire
Erika,
Though it is not in my nature to be disagreeable (with anyone other than Todd). I have a thought about your idea of churches being more open to other faiths.
Religion, and I mean all religion, are exclusive by nature. No religion in the world reconciles itself with another. The only one that even comes close is Christianity's springing from Judaism. To accept others terms for salvation is to water down your own, and it is generally the view of deities that they are the best.
If you are suggesting that we should probably stop killing each other in the name of religion, I'm with you. But if you are suggesting that a Muslim should accept Christ, or a Buddist should accept Jihad, or a Pastafarian (http://www.venganza.org) should accept the God of the Torah, then I would take umbrage with you and say good day.
Science isn't (or shouldn't be) an exercise in consensus. It should be the proposal of theory subjected to extreme scrutiny and testing. Conclusions about said theory should fall into one of three catagories: TRUE, FALSE, or NEED MORE INFO. My argument on the air was that macro-evolution has been declared "The Way" in much the same manner that I might argue Jesus Christ is "The Way". I point to my miracles, assumptions, and beleifs in much the same way an evolutionist does. Yet I get called a religious nut and and evolutionists are called "men of science".
I am sorry about the librarian thing. I will make the correction next show.
Dear Great Debate (is it Doug? or is it Nate?)
You're right, no religions reconcile themselvs in terms of the rules it lays down. But all religions reconcile themselves with the way to know God. The fact that religions are exclusive by nature is their major flaw - God is not exclusive. God is unity, not division. God is bigger than religion - I'm pretty sure She (!) is not thinking about it in terms of "right" and "wrong."
Eirka,
It's Doug (It's always Doug.)
How do you mean they reconcile themselves in the way to know God?
As far as God thinking about the idea religion in terms of right or wrong (as in, this religion is right, this one is wrong), I guess I agree with you. But God is all about peoples actions being right or wrong (that's pretty much most diety's take on it anyways) and for the most part, religion is the collective structure under which a group of people enact the rules they feel God has laid down for them.
I do have a question though. How can you say that claiming exclusivity is a flaw? It sounds like a pretty absolute statement. How can you condemn others for making a morally absolute statement (like God exists and He is "The Way") while you are making a morally absolute statement to condemn them?
I think the denial of absolutes leads to some pretty messed up meta-physics and logic. I think it's better to admit that you have biases and what they are instead of trying to dictate that no one should have any biases. It's easier to argue against or for "something" as opposed to "nothing".
Isn't this fun? ;)
Still,
Doug
Claire,
We were really looking forward to Doug in a tu-tu, and we would've had that video to post for the ADD in our audience. But we didn't break the aforementioned 25 listeners. Thanks for listening. Tell your friends, and let's get Doug in a dress.
The Managment.
Hi, Great Debate-
Ok, you got me - if I'm going to argue for relativism, moral or otherwise, then I can't in good conscience call something flawed, because it is inherently part of the divine whole. I'll rephrase: I believe exclusivity does not serve life to the degree that unity does. Exclusivity necessarily pits something against another thing, creating conflict, creating winners and, necessarily, losers.
By the way, I totally don't think God thinks in terms of things being right or wrong. I think God is like the sun - shines on all, regardless of their actions, loves everybody, no matter what. In fact, I would go so far as to say that humanity is headed for a paradigm shift in which we evolve past the need to judge people as right or wrong. I feel pretty strongly about this - am willing to go 10 rounds with you on it, which we just might do, as I am guessing you disagree with me just as strongly
Post a Comment