The Controversy Comes to “The View”

Here’s some air-headed diversion for you. It’s a brief video from The View, a daytime TV talk show which we assume is popular with — no, we won’t attempt to characterize their audience.

The ladies are discussing The Controversy between evolution and creationism — specifically, how it should be presented in universities, where they have all those nasty atheist professors. All sides are presented, but not very articulately.

YouTube says the video is from 2009. You can tell it isn’t from a recent show because Barbara Walters is there. We also recognize Whoopi Goldberg (because she plays a strange character on Star Trek), but we have no idea who the others are. It doesn’t matter.

We can’t find anything else to write about so far, so go ahead and take a look. It’s only two-and-a-half minutes long.

Copyright © 2015. 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

23 responses to “The Controversy Comes to “The View”

  1. docbill1351

    They’re talking about Ray Freaking Comfort writing a “preface” to Origin which he handed out some years ago.

    The “genius” in the center is Heidi Montag! OMG, why would anyone want to listen to ANYTHING she has to say. Vacuous doesn’t begin to describe it.

    I don’t know how Whoopie has managed to keep her sanity on that show, or maybe, in fact, she’s lost it.

  2. Who is this “Chawls Daawin” of whom Babs Walters speaks?

  3. There seemed to be a fleeting substance to the words of Walters and Goldberg. The others…no.

  4. Chawls Daawin was a womanizer? Where does that come from? More convolution from the illiterate.

  5. An interesting development in the world of Ken.H appears to be that his minions have discovered that google will promote your website search standing if given enough money or possibly drool. I’d suggest doing a google search for “what really happened to the dinosaurs”.

    Will Google be changing it’s name to Droolgle in the near future?
    My apologies for the double post.

  6. Wlaters and Goldberg both appear rational as does Joy Behar (sp), the woman next to Goldberg, who says during the fade out “there’s a LOT of proof there” regarding evolution. Then the twit next to Walters says on the fade “It’s not an absolute” (translation: It’s only a theory.)

  7. Dean asks:

    Chawls Daawin was a womanizer?

    You appear to doubt this. Granted, there is no evidence that he was–indeed, there is an abundance of evidence that he was deeply devoted to his wife Emma–but as any Creationist can tell you, evidence means squat. What matters is interpretation.

    And who can doubt that Chawls Daawin, having single-handedly ended the millennia of unversal peace that had prevailed prior to his publication of Origins by personally ushering in the modern era of violence, crime, abortion, unnatural sexual practises, godlessness, war, famine, Fascism, Communism, Terrorism, and the heartbreak of psoriasis–can you possibly doubt that such a monster must have been a womaniser as well?

  8. Megalonyx says of Darwin: “an you possibly doubt that such a monster must have been a womaniser as well?”

    I have long suspected that Darwin committed the crimes attributed to Jack the Ripper. Although the Ripper’s activity was in 1888, and Darwin allegedly died in 1882, one can never be sure. After all — Were you there?

  9. michaelfugate

    Doesn’t the very fact that CD deemed sexual selection as different from natural selection – mean he was proposing something “unnatural”? I mean if it is not missionary, fully-clothed and only with the intention of begetting male offspring, then – need I say more? What kind of perv….

  10. Sadly, I didn’t get to hear Whoopi, I had to stop when Heidi Montag started to babble. I couldn’t take the dumb.

  11. Our Curmudgeon sagely notes

    Although the Ripper’s activity was in 1888, and Darwin allegedly died in 1882, one can never be sure.

    Indeed. An evil monster capable of the dreadful crimes of Jack the Ripper would not have had no compunction in either faking his own death in 1882, or indeed, in returning from the dead to carry out his appalling deeds.

  12. Megalonyx agrees that Darwin may have been Jack the Ripper. To which I say that even if one regards this theory as unproven, there’s no doubt that the Ripper’s crimes came after Darwin’s satanic theory was published, so we can confidently say: No Darwin, no Jack the Ripper.

  13. cnocspeireag

    Heidi Montag is extremely decorative. If she had average looks she would be selling burgers under close supervision.

  14. docbill1351

    I did a Google search of Darwin and womanizer and found exactly NOTHING. Of course, that fits with the narrative of his biography that he was not a cad, a bounder an exploiter. Quite the contrary, Darwin was very conventional for the times and a devoted husband and father.

    It just goes to show the level of stupidity that is defined by “the View.” Vapid and useless.

  15. Good news, folks. There’s some better programming than this coming soon to a PBS station near you. Click on the link to PBS’s website for the details.
    http://www.pbs.org/first-peoples/home/

    The program is a five-part series starting June 24 (Wednesday next week) called First Peoples about the beginnings and spread of homo Sapiens starting about 200,000 years ago. Should be very interesting.
    Should drive Ken Ham over the edge.

  16. Dave Luckett

    “Should drive Ken Ham over the edge,” says retiredsciguy.

    Nah. Two different reasons. One, our Kenny (you don’t mind if I call him “our”, do you, since he’s from here?) went over the edge about forty years back, has spent all that time in free fall, and wouldn’t have it any other way.

    Two, he’ll love it. It’s more grist to his mill: the mainstream media and the pointy-headed effete intellecshulls are driving us all to Armageddon, repent, repent, woe woe, send money.

    Honest, he reminds me a little of Cassandra the soothsayer in “Up Pompeii”. Not enough to laugh at, much, on account of Kenny’s kinda real, for certain values of “real”. If you doubt this, ask whether or not he charges real cash.

  17. @Dave Luckett: You’re right. Perhaps I should have burrowed our Curmudgeon’s line about Ham “foaming at the mouth, rolling on the floor, chewing the carpet” or somesuch. At any rate, you just know he’s going to have plenty to say about it on his website.

    And he may remind you a little of Cassandra; he reminds me of Elmer Gantry — only on a much larger scale.

    Oh — here’s some more info on First Peoples:
    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-homo-sapiens-became-world’s-dominant-species?mode=magazine&context=190312

  18. Chawls Daawin was a womanizer…

    Doesn’t matter. After all, the laws of the universe might have operated differently back then. For all we know, adultery might have been a virtue at the time. We don’t know. You don’t know. (After all, were you there?)

    So, before anybody criticizes Darwin on moral grounds, just remember that such conduct may have been virtuous at that time and place!

  19. It doesn’t matter because:
    1) Darwin repented on his deathbed about evolution, not his womanizing.
    2) Darwin stole the idea of evolution. The guy he stole it from was not a womanizer.

  20. Even if Chawls Daawin was a womanizer, why would that make him a bad person when Jimmy Swaggart and numerous other cornerstones of the U.S. evangelical community seem to wear it as a badge of honor and use getting caught as an opportunity to elevate themselves, over and over.

  21. Off-topic, but our readers may find this diverting, as many of us are fans of Joseph Farah, editor of WorldNutDaily (and the guy who inspired Anders Breivik to kill 72 people, mostly teenagers, in Norway over some white supremacy $%^&, to judge from Breivik’s manifesto which copied Farah’s Biblical justifications for homicide).

    Farah joins what is is a growing number of conservative Christians in demanding violent rebellion to break up the United States over two dudes on a cake. Nothing traitorous about that. Farah hopes a state or states will secede from the Union if SCOTUS actually applies the 14th Amendment to gay people. Secession was so successful the last time conservatives tried it.

    Failing that, Farah expects nations that still ban gay marriage (which nowadays means Arab and African dictatorships) must brace for an influx of millions of American hatriots running out of the ol’ US of A. (Yeah… countries that ban gay marriage will sure respect the religious freedoms of everyone!) And, I like to think, our hatriots will show up with one-way tickets bought for them gratis by equality-loving Americans, and with our bootprints on the seats of their trousers. (A man can dream.)

    Since you conservative Christians love Uganda so much, be sure to take some mosquito repellent. You’ll finally have an audience that will believe you’re authorities on science, and I’m sure the Ugandans will respect everybody’s freedom of religion!

  22. @GregS
    What is revealing is not that neither of them know what they’re talking about, but rather that both of them think that a conversation consists in saying “I’m right”. No one seems to think of contributing by suggesting a reason, or a way to decide, or some way of moving the conversation.
    What grade does it sound like?