Tabletop Transitional – Comedian Louis C.K. on evolution

What? You1 haven’t heard of Louis C.K.? Really? Then you’ve been missing out on one of the best stand-up comedians alive today. His bits on the inquisitiveness of young children and why the world is amazing, yet nobody cares were formative in my appreciation of good comedy. He’s a comedy legend.

Of course, comedy by itself is usually not relevant enough to post on this blog, no matter how good I think it is, so you’re lucky that Louis C.K. just so happened to have a bit about evolution as an outtake from his recently released stand-up special Louis C.K. Live at the Beacon Theatre (available now at www.louisck.com for only US$5).

The video contains strong language and sexual references. Jeez, I sound like a content advisory warning at the start of a television show, don’t I?

- - - - - - - - -
  1. This use of the word “you” only applies to those who have not heard of the comedian Louis C.K. I’m assuming I only know roughly 8-15 people in this category.

Wil Anderson on the Intelligent Designer’s terrible mistakes

Wil Anderson is a well-known Australian comedian, who has hosted such TV programs as The Glass House and The Gruen Transfer (the latter happens to be one of my favourite shows: just imagine a comedian and some sympathetic advertising executives sitting around talking about good, bad and ugly advertising strategies for half an hour – it’s incredible). He’s also an atheist and rather rationally-minded in general, so it was always possible that he was going to develop some bits based around creationism and intelligent design. Thank goodness he eventually did.

The following clip is from his first DVD, Wilosophy, which came out in 2009. Enjoy. (It does contain a bit of swearing and sexual humour, but we’re all adults here, right? Right?)

You can find out more about Wil at his personal website.

Note that I don’t endorse the use of the bad design argument (as Wil uses) against the general and vague metahypothesis of “pure” intelligent design, as I’ve previously mentioned. Only when attributes of the designs the proposed Designer would produce have been identified – for example, in the case of a benevolent and powerful Designer, optimality or near-optimality – can such falsifying arguments be used. Saying that the human eye is crap means nothing if you don’t really know if the Designer wanted or could have produced a better one.