November 22, 2014 · 7:14 AM

The WWL, taking sides?

Two ESPN talking heads get into a Twitter debate about evolution, but only one gets a suspension.  It’s the guy who defends the theory, which maybe isn’t such a surprise from the network that’s employed the likes of Lou Holtz and Craig James.  But you’d think it would make more sense to play it even-handed, no?

40 Comments

Filed under ESPN Is The Devil

40 responses to “The WWL, taking sides?”

  1. simpl_matter
    November 22, 2014 at 8:10 AM

    Never bring facts to a twitter fight.

    Like

  2. gastr1
    November 22, 2014 at 9:53 AM

    I don’t understand why these people are not threatened by these long-running claims that Earth is not the center of the universe or the solar system. I mean, how many people have actually seen the solar system, much less the universe?

    Like

    • Bar Dawg
      November 22, 2014 at 10:35 AM

      Show me a fossil of a fish walking around smoking a cigarette and drinking coffee, and I will throw my 2k year old book out the window.

      Like

    • John
      November 22, 2014 at 11:06 AM

      There’s plenty of evidence for micro-evolution, but there truly is no hard evidence for macro-evolution. None.

      Like

        • John
          November 22, 2014 at 5:12 PM

          Thank you for that link. I’ve book marked it. I’ll continue to read it when I can, but this information is still theories and the author states that. He says the “probabilities” are high but there’s no exact proof. Their DNA is a close match so that means one evolved from another? Again, the author has to rely on probabilities because the fossil record does not have the small step-by-step pieces it needs to support this. Correct? If this was in your link could you tell me where? I tried unsuccessfully to find it. Thanks!

          Like

          • BrightOwl
            November 22, 2014 at 6:26 PM

            This isn’t really the place for this discussion so this will be my last comment.

            You are free to believe whatever you choose, but in science if something is just a theory then it has withstood every attempt to disprove it. This particular theory has withstood every single test brought against it for the last century in a half and there have been many, many attempts by highly motivated people to discredit it. I’m not really sure what you mean by “hard” evidence but the evidence for this theory is widespread, overwhelming, and completely compelling to anyone who approaches it with an open mind.

            The Book says that the Lord shaped us from “the clay of the ground.” It doesn’t say how He did it. Faith in His existence and the truth of His message is in no way lessened by a willingness to engage and understand His creation, using the eyes and the minds that He gave us. Some might grow in arrogance and lose sight of the Lord; but He will never forget them.

            Like

            • John
              November 22, 2014 at 8:29 PM

              You’re right it’s not the place. If we were discussing this over a beer you’d probably find that we agree on a lot especially having an open mind. My main point was having probabilities means having faith because these theories are not proven. I believe in the Big Bang Theory but there’s no proof of it…lots of evidence but no proof. That’s all. Thanks for the info though…I will continue to read it as a stated earlier

              Like

  3. Brownesman
    November 22, 2014 at 10:17 AM

    ESPN claims that they did not put him in Twitter timeout due to his comments. Uh huh.
    It’s amazing their fear of former players and coaches

    Like

  4. Cojones
    November 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM

    Lawdy, Lawdy, Lawdy. Old Curt done caught his dick in the time trap. Think he keeps a blood-soaked sock over his desk to remind him of the 9th Commandment?

    Like

  5. Cojones
    November 22, 2014 at 10:35 AM

    Love the smell of sulphur in the morning mixed with sports and religion.

    Like

  7. Mark
    November 22, 2014 at 11:03 AM

    Wonder if there was a particular tweet that was a problem or a pattern of behavior they were going after. Based on the article, it seems strange. Makes me think there might be more to the story….

    Like

  8. Mike Cooley
    November 22, 2014 at 11:07 AM

    I hate when this blog gets into this kind of thing. This place is great when it’s focused on football. Politics and religion? No.

    Like

  9. john
    November 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM

    I’ll say that it takes more faith to believe that we are here from cosmic luck than to believe in a creator.

    Like

    • Bar Dawg
      November 22, 2014 at 12:11 PM

      What all the evidence points to “cosmic luck”, why would it take more faith?

      Like

      • John
        November 22, 2014 at 5:22 PM

        http://www.science20.com/news_releas…h_like_planets

        “Infinity was invented to account for the possibility that in a never-ending universe, anything can happen. Life on other Earth-like planets, for example, is possible in an infinite universe, but not probable, according to a scientist from the University of East Anglia.

        The mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low because of the time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining life span of the Earth. Structurally complex and intelligent life evolved late on Earth and this process might be governed by a small number of very difficult evolutionary steps.

        Prof Watson, from the School of Environmental Sciences, takes this idea further by looking at the probability of each of these critical steps occurring in relation to the life span of the Earth, giving an improved mathematical model for the evolution of intelligent life.

        According to Prof Watson a limit to evolution is the habitability of Earth, and any other Earth-like planets, which will end as the sun brightens. Solar models predict that the brightness of the sun is increasing, while temperature models suggest that because of this the future life span of Earth will be ‘only’ about another billion years, a short time compared to the four billion years since life first appeared on the planet.

        “The Earth’s biosphere is now in its old age and this has implications for our understanding of the likelihood of complex life and intelligence arising on any given planet,” said Prof Watson.

        “At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life. If we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that we had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one, we’d suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved late in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is rather unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very rare indeed.”

        Prof Watson suggests the number of evolutionary steps needed to create intelligent life, in the case of humans, is four. These probably include the emergence of single-celled bacteria, complex cells, specialized cells allowing complex life forms, and intelligent life with an established language.

        “Complex life is separated from the simplest life forms by several very unlikely steps and therefore will be much less common. Intelligence is one step further, so it is much less common still,” said Prof Watson.

        His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.

        Each step is independent of the other and can only take place after the previous steps in the sequence have occurred. They tend to be evenly spaced through Earth’s history and this is consistent with some of the major transitions identified in the evolution of life on Earth.”

        Like

  10. Union Jack
    November 22, 2014 at 11:43 AM

    Law got suspended for the same reason that Bill Simmons was suspended. He got personal on social media with a fellow member of the ESPN family.

    Like

  11. Andy
    November 22, 2014 at 3:44 PM

    Senator, please don’t start linking Vox on a regular basis. It’s just a collection of self-proclaimed “wonks” with the intelligence/arrogance of Ron Burgundy with none of the humor.

    Like

  12. muckbeast
    November 22, 2014 at 4:39 PM

    This is up there with the Bill Simmons suspension in the pantheon of ESPN embarrassing moves.

    Like

  13. roswelldawg
    November 23, 2014 at 7:29 AM

    Every belief system, including Christianity and the theory of evolution, involves a faith proposition. You believe a certain set of facts or ideals, and hope that you are right. You have faith that what you believe is true. Naturalism, theism, existentialism, just fill in the blank. The more important question is what are the possible outcomes in your belief system? If one contemplates life after death, and chooses to believe in Christianity, you will attempt to live your life with those principles in mind. In theory, your beliefs will drive you to model those ideals towards others in your life such as love, justice, generosity, kindness, courage and compassion. You will also live those ideals out imperfectly. And you will be criticized for your imperfection and called a hypocrite because you claim to know the truth. You will deserve the accusation. Welcome to the human condition. After living an imperfect but well meaning life, in which you hopefully touched the lives of others around you, including your spouse, family, coworkers and those in everyday life with those ideals, you will die physically and enter into an eternal life with the God who promises that you will be in His presence forever.

    Alternatively, you can adopt a post modern approach to life, believing that all truth is relative and self-determined, that life is to be lived for enjoyment and freedom of choice. Along the way you may or may not make choices that positively impact others; it doesn’t matter if you do or not, because ultimately, you determine what is moral and immoral and your culture has granted you the right to be the arbiter of all truth and that society/culture has no right to impose its beliefs on you. Your life may or may not be judged as adding peace, hope and compassion to the human family, but that is not necessarily important to you. What matters is that you get to do what you want. Then when you die, your life ends and it is all over.

    Given those choices, and having to make a faith decision in one or the other of these life paths, which one has the most potential for creating good during your life on earth, and if there is life afterwards, for eternity, and which one doesn’t?

    Like

    • Senator Blutarsky
      November 23, 2014 at 9:09 AM

      I imagine the Roman Catholic Church delivered much the same message to Galileo.

      I respect the sincerity of your religious beliefs much more than it sounds like you respect the scientific process.

      And with that said, I think it would be wise to drop this discussion. I don’t want to start a religious debate here and that wasn’t the point of my post.

      Like

    • The Lone Stranger
      November 24, 2014 at 7:26 PM

      For whatever it’s worth (in the context of a sports blog), I thought that was very perceptive and refreshing amidst a World just hangin’ on the next sports score.

      Like

  14. Rhymerdawg
    November 23, 2014 at 12:46 PM

    Well just a though proposition. The belief in evolutionary fact is a circular argument. From the beginning the geologist stated that they knew that certain strata was from a certain date because of the fossil evidence. Conversely and at the same time the biologist was stating that they knew the age of the fossil record based on the strata in which these fossils were found. Since, neither of these scientists could accurately conclude any age of strata or fossil evidence then I have to infer that any theory based on such should be viewed through skeptical goggles.

    Like

    • Rhymerdawg
      November 23, 2014 at 12:47 PM

      Rather than belief, my second sentence should read; The argument for evolutionary fact is circular. Sorry for my error

      Like