Neil deGrasse Tyson on Intelligent Design

This is a great way to start your weekend, dear reader. The video is less than five minutes long, and it’s utterly devastating to the concept of intelligent design.

The speaker is Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist whom many of you may have seen before on various episodes of NOVA. He runs through a whole range of features, cosmic, planetary, and biological, to illustrate that the universe, the Earth, and our own wonderful selves are very far from being intelligently designed. This has only been on YouTube for a week, and it’s already been viewed over 400,000 times.

We’ve mentioned a few of his examples before, in posts like Buffoon Award Winner — The Intelligent Designer, and More of the Intelligent Designer’s Blunders, but Tyson’s presentation is much greater in scope and far more entertaining.

Are we seeing a trend? First Bill Nye, now Tyson. Trend or not, we like it, and we know the creationists won’t be happy. Anything that discomforts creationists is welcome indeed.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

16 responses to “Neil deGrasse Tyson on Intelligent Design

  1. “An entertainment center in the middle of a sewer system.”

    Please, Mr. Klinghoffer, write us a long, detailed, emotional defense of that design. Please.

  2. Tyson has several videos up, including one in which he destroys many of the canards of the ID/creationism movement. The fact that he gets lots of views probably has nothing to do with Nye getting publicity; Tyson will do great all on his own.
    Question is this: Will AiG or the DI dare to challenge Tyson to a debate? I’m pretty sure Tyson would ignore them, but it would be interesting nonetheless.

  3. Gary asks: “Will AiG or the DI dare to challenge Tyson to a debate? I’m pretty sure Tyson would ignore them, but it would be interesting nonetheless.”

    Most preachers ignore Hambo. Today he’s ranting about the Assemblies of God. Why would a scientist even consider a debate with him? And the Discoveroids will just make noise at their blog.

  4. SC said:

    Why would a scientist even consider a debate with him?

    Yeah, something else dawned me after my last post. What Tyson is presenting is the actual evidence of why an intelligent designer doesn’t make any sense. Either AiG or the DI will have a difficult time because they would try to attack Tyson. But that would be irrelevant since the evidence would still stand strong.

  5. Splendid!

    And deserves a wide audience. Does clicking on the link here increment the count of hits on YouTube? I hope so.

  6. “Entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system” .
    Is he talking about humans or a yacht club on Long Island Sound?
    And , Wow , a new term. Stupid Design. Thanks Curm, Made my day.

  7. “Entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system.”

    Classic! That’s a line worthy of the late George Carlin.

  8. Yes, this was a great way to start a day.

  9. This is my favorite Tyson talk. Ever.

  10. Tyson deserves a medal.

  11. Someone has to spoil the fun. As with Nye’s talk I had high hopes but was disappointed. More “preaching to the choir,” and more opportunities for anti-science activists to spin it their way. I was never a fan of the “bad design” argument. It has value in explaining common descent, but when we imply, even by omission, that “no designer would do it that way” we are handing our opponents the keys. What I would say after explaining common descent is that it is so well supported that even some committed anti-evolution activists have conceded it, and many more are unsure. And that if anyone in the audience remains unconvinced that they need to take it up with those activists.

  12. FrankJ ” handing the opposition the keys”
    Your point is well taken. This thought had ocurred to me as well. But oh so hilarious a talk by Neil. It at least deserves points for its satirical content, no?

  13. @Will

    Agree that it deserves points for that, even though the “entertainment center” quote has been around for years. I wouldn’t even mind if the “preaching to the choir” part consumed half of the effort expended in fighting pseudoscience and superstition. Unfortunately, that plus the “bait taking” (whining about “lying for Jesus” etc.) consume 99+% of the effort. As a result, the ones we most need to reach remain unimpressed. Not because the excellent arguments for science and against creationism/ID aren’t there, but because they’re drowned out. That would not be an issue if that audience had 10% of the time and interest that we have, but unfortunately they don’t.

  14. Sorry to throw cold water on the happy proceedings, but a small quibble: the aborted fetuses imagery was horribly, disturbingly graphic — especially in context with the tone of the lecture, which is otherwise presented with a casual levity and a consciously “jokey,” stand-up style delivery. It was perhaps misplaced, and borderline tasteless.

  15. @NeonNoodle:

    That too bothered me, and was unnecessary even to make the tired old “bad design” argument. His blooper at the time made it all the worse.

  16. I disagree — the deformed fetuses show clearly that we are not the result of Intelligent Design. Should he have shown a Down Syndrome child instead?
    ( Yes, I realize that comment was in poor taste. I wanted to prove the point.)