This just in: Glenn Beck a moron

October 20, 2010 • 5:06 pm

Along with Christine O’Donnell, he doesn’t accept evolution because he doesn’t see monkeys evolving into humans. TPM reports:

On his radio show today, Beck wondered how many people in the country believe in evolution, and said he doesn’t: “I don’t think we came from monkeys. I think that’s ridiculous. I haven’t seen a half-monkey, half-person yet.”

“If I get to the other side and God’s like, ‘You know what, yep, you were a monkey once,’ I’ll be shocked, but I’ll be cool with it,” he said.

“They have to make you care,” Beck continued. “They have to force it down your throat. When anybody has to force it — it’s a problem. You didn’t have to force that the world was round. Truth is truth.”

I have news for Beck: not only did we evolve from apelike ancestors, but there isn’t any “other side.”

100 thoughts on “This just in: Glenn Beck a moron

    1. Actually, I think you’ll find that the term is “post-normal” science.

      Just like climate science … oh, and ’round earth’ and ‘heliocentric solar system’ science, both of which, in fact, had to be ‘forced’ on an unwilling world.

  1. One of the reasons that people like GB and CO’D mistakenly think that evolution requires a half person/half monkey transition is that they learned about evolution from The Simpsons.

  2. George Soros wrote the Origin of Species under the pseudonym, Charles Darwin. I figured it out by tenuously connecting the dots among various names and organizations on my chalkboard.

  3. There is one problem with this article. “This just in” – Glen Beck has been a moron for years and years and years.

    1. Si. But don’t you think JC was a little harsh on morons? I’m mean, come on, he could have shown just a little respect. Even morons deserve a little more respect than having their clan’s reputation defiled with the likes of GB’s persona.
      ~Rev. El

  4. “They have to make you care,” Beck continued. “They have to force it down your throat.”

    At first, I thought he was talking about religion! What a jizznozzle. Newsflash, Beck. It’s not “forcing it down your throat.” It’s “education.”

    1. They also had to force that the world was round!

      “The paradigm of a spherical Earth was developed in ancient Greek astronomy, beginning with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most Pre-Socratics retained the flat Earth model. Aristotle accepted the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds around 330 BC, and knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on.

      The misconception that educated people at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth has been referred to as “The Myth of the Flat Earth”. […]

      It has been suggested that seafarers probably provided the first observational evidence that the Earth was not flat.” [Wikipedia, “Flat Earth”]

      Where is the forcing? A gradual spread rejects “forcing”.

      The same goes for evolution, which has gradually spread outside of theocratic circles. The difference is that Beck and his peers won’t accept the evidence of their eyes (that they aren’t identical with their ancestors).

      1. “Where is the forcing”? Did you miss the whole Galileo episode where he was confined to house arrest for preaching geocentrism? Or Martin Luther’s rant that the Bible says that Joshua told the sun to hold still and not the earth? Although many people may have accepted geocentrism before Magellan circumvented the globe, the ignorant “Glen Becks” of the middle ages did not accept it willingly.

        1. Geocentrism doesn’t mean that the Earth is round. It means the sun revolves around the earth. And Galileo was confined because he OPPOSED geocentrism.

  5. I’ll grant you Beck is not the brightest star in the media galaxy, but what is up with this:

    “I have news for Beck: not only did we evolve from apelike ancestors, but there isn’t any “other side.”

    In the words of the great Napoleon Dynamite: “Like anyone could even KNOW that”

    Seriously, how could you KNOW there was no ‘other side’? Won’t you even dare to IMAGINE?

    Anyway, evolution is not a certainty. It is technically and scientifically still a THEORY last time I checked. It’s a compelling one, and there is evidence to support it, but there is also evidence to support intelligent design.. compelling evidence… like fine tuning.. and you know it

    Peace

    I enjoy your blog

    1. Seriously, how could you KNOW there was no ‘other side’? Won’t you even dare to IMAGINE?

      How can you KNOW there’s no tooth fairy? Won’t you even dare to IMAGINE?

      Anyway, evolution is not a certainty.

      Yes it is. It is factually observed.

      It is technically and scientifically still a THEORY last time I checked.

      Check again. Or, actually, check more carefully, because you’re confused about what those words actually mean. The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a different concept of the fact of evolution and the fact of gravity. The facts are what happens – things fall, things evolve, these are observable facts. The theories are explanations of why the facts happen.

      but there is also evidence to support intelligent design

      No there isn’t. Not a bit of it. Fine tuning is such a lame argument. You will have to do much better than that.

      1. Fine tuning is a logical fallacy (god of the gaps), and not even a very good one at that. In order to claim fine tuning, you must claim:

        1: You know the entire phase space of possible physical constants. And is there any weighting, or are all configurations equally likely?

        2a: You know what proportion of that space allows the progression from low entropy to high entropy, at which point the possibility of intelligent life arises.

        2b (restatement of 2a): You know what proportion of the phase space from (1) that allows the existence of life. Not just human life, or even life like that on earth, but any kind of life.

        3: Which means you need to know all the different kinds of life that are possible.

        Now you have an idea of how likely life is for any given universe, now you need to know:

        4: How many iterations you’re allowed to make. Is there one universe that only ‘starts’ once? Is there one universe that ‘restarts’ a number of times (infinitely?), and do the conditions change each time? Are there many universes?

        None of these things are known to any reasonable degree, which makes the fine tuning argument little more than blowing smoke.

        1. Don’t forget to mention that before we can conclude that probability of our universe existing in a manner that supports life requires the conclusion that it “must” have been fine tuned by “god,” we would have to calculate the probability of god existing so that we could compare the two. What exactly is the probability of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal, non-material being existing?

    2. If you like the blog, you should read the book. It would help keep you from making such ignorant statements.

    3. “but there is also evidence to support intelligent design.. compelling evidence… like fine tuning.. and you know it”

      “. . . you know it.”

      A proof if I ever heard one.

      “It just IS!”

      – Douglas Adams

    4. And gravity is technically and scientifically still a theory. It’s a compelling one, and there is evidence to support it, but there is also evidence to support intelligent falling … compelling evidence … like fine tuning …

      … oh wait! I *lied*! There is also the fact of gravitational acceleration, which the theory predicts as it must. In the same way that evolution predicts that you are not identical with your parents – inherited evolutionary change by sexual mixing. (Yes, technically there’s also selection. Witness the 60-80 % of the zygotes that fails to implant.)

      And that is all there is to it. There is no relevant “intelligent falling” alternative. Evidence is not used for religious confirmation but for scientific disconfirmation, and “ID” isn’t relevant as it can’t be confirmed and can’t be disconfirmed.

      Btw, the finetuning you speak of doesn’t exist. We can vary ratios of cosmological parameters over orders of magnitude, and ~ 50 % of those universes have planets just like ours. You have been fed a religious theocratic party line that isn’t applicable here. The finetuning that can be observed concern parameter choices in physical theories (such as the magnitude of cosmological constant) and not evolution.

        1. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory

          KANSAS CITY As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science
          curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state.
          Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are
          now asserting that the long-held “theory of gravity” is flawed, and
          they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

          “Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational
          force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is
          pushing them down,” said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in
          education,applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

          Burdett added: “Gravity, which is taught to our children as a law, is
          founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual
          force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that
          force.Isaac Newton himself said, ‘I suspect that my theories may all
          depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of
          nature in vain.’ Of course,he is alluding to a higher power.”

          Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world’s leading institution
          of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal
          interpretation of the Bible.

          According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the
          International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God’s
          Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by
          secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly,
          how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of
          Paradise.

          The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and
          other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for
          public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of
          gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered
          both sides of the issue “so they can make an informed decision.”

          “We just want the best possible education for Kansas’ kids,”Burdett said.

          Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories
          used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not
          internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that
          Einstein’s ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with
          quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say,
          proves that gravity is a theory inc risis.

          “Let’s take a look at the evidence,” said ECFR senior fellow Gregory
          Lunsden.”In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, ‘And if the blind lead the
          blind, both shall fall into the ditch.’ He says nothing about
          some gravity making them fall, just that they will fall. Then, in Job
          5:7, we read, ‘But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks
          fly upwards.’ If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the
          sparks fly upwards with great surety?This clearly indicates that a
          conscious intelligence governs all falling.”

          Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable
          law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena.
          Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict
          between Newton’s mathematics and Holy Scripture.

          “Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein’s
          general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world,”said
          Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her
          work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. “They’ve been trying to do it
          for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical
          observation and carefully compiled data, they still don’t know how.”

          “Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain
          how gravitation is supposed to work,” Carson said. “What the
          gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that ‘gravity waves’ and
          ‘gravitons’ are just secular words for ‘God can do whatever
          He wants.'”

          Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides
          an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.
          “Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the
          ‘electromagnetic force,’ the ‘weak nuclear force,’ the
          ‘strong nuclear force,’ and so-called ‘force of gravity,'” Burdett
          said. “And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into
          one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia
          what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus.”

            1. Yep – Screechy Monkey linked to it.
              Years ago I used to argue with creationists, when I was still working on my ecology degree. I have to admit that I ended up being somewhat of an accommodating, when I realised that evidence means nothing to the faithful. It was Monckton, with climate denial that focused me back into fighting irrationality and only very recently I read Dawkins – I feel like I’ve been out of a credible loop for a long time, farting around with fairies. I’m enjoying being back in the real evidence-based world and not feeling like I need to tip-toe around ideology as though it was an unfortunate growth defect (when it’s quite clearly a parasite).

    5. Anyone who claims in ALL CAPS that evolution is “just a THEORY” is an unmitigated uneducated moron.

      Please read a book. Why Evolution is True would be a great place to start.

    6. Joe: okay, let’s assume the existence of “another side”. When you die, what part of you goes there?

      If you said “soul” bzzt wrong, no such thing exists. Just think about it: how would Ritalin work, if the intangible soul were the seat of “you-ness”? Selexa? Regardless of what you think of it, the entire modern panalopy of psychologically therapeutic pharmacology depends on the non-existence of a soul (or in other words, that the mind can be affected by pharmacologically active chemicals)

      The entity that believes itself to be “you” is contained entirely within the bag of dirty water you call your body. When that bag stops doing its bag things, you cease to exist.

      So if there is “another side”, it’s full of pissed off angels and God going “oh shit, I forgot something didn’t I?”

    7. If you enjoy Prof Coyne’s blog, you’ll LOVE his book entitled “Why Evolution Is True”. You really should read the bloody thing.


      “but there is also evidence to support intelligent design.. compelling evidence… like fine tuning.. and you know it”

      Well, no, you can’t know what isn’t there.

      But let’s, for the sake of humouring a rube, say yes. So, this evidence for intelligent design…what form does this evidence take? With the example of living organisms (because, as you should know, “fine tuning” isn’t a biological question but a cosmological one; it is also invalid) do you know, for instance:

      – the identity of the designer
      – whether there is more than one designer
      – whether the designer itself was designed
      – the methods of construction
      – the materials & tools used
      – the intent of the design (why design something for no purpose?)
      – an example of any one organism or part of an organism that can categorically not be plausibly explained through natural means (and if you mention the bacterial flagellum, you automatically forfeit)
      – any explanation as to the designer’s continual intervention in Earth’s biosphere (the fact is, organisms keep changing, so if they’re not evolving naturally, something must be actively changing them)
      – any plausible explanation for the numerous defects of “design” shown in so many creatures (human blind spot, mammalian recurrent laryngeal nerve, human knees, mental retardation, conjoined twins, widespread contentment with ignorance)

      In short, do you have anything but plain ignorance or flat denial of evolution upon which to base your THEORY that God did it? I mean, of intelligent creationism? I mean, of intelligent design?

    8. Darwin talks about the “Theory of Creation”, but until his day it was the best idea anyone had. the modern “Theory of Creation” is not a proper theory as understood by science – or anyone rational for that matter.

      ‘Fine tuning’ is nonsense.

    9. Hahaha. Joe, are you really that dumb?
      Evolution is called a theory. So is gravity. And the cell theory. And the atomic theory. The list is very long. They are all established facts.
      Fine tuning. My ass. Check Stephen Hawking. Or Victor Stenger. Or Stephen Weinberg. No shortage of Noble laureates in physics debunking it.
      As for “who knows…”. Are there humans living on Mars? You say not? But how can you KNOW?
      I enjoyed your trolling.

    10. Joe,

      Gravity is just a theory.

      When was the last time you walked out of a 10th story window ?

      Didn’t think so.

      And you may want to get the caps lock key on your keyboard checked out.

      Peas.

    11. Um, if God can do anything there’d be no need to fine tune. He could, for example, create humans that could breathe *anything*. Or he could create humans that don’t need the exact gravity we have, etc.

      Things being “perfect” for us is not in any way an indication that they were created for us. (I’ve always liked Douglas Adams’ analogy of a puddle that thinks the hole it’s in must have been created just for it, because it fits it so perfectly.)

      On the other hand, the universe and life on this planet are exactly what you’d expect for a non-supernatural explanation.

    12. I am afraid our hit and run troll quite likely misspelled his name.
      The correct spelling would be P-O-E.

  6. I love Beck, he sounds like that drunk at the local tavern … the only difference is that he is not slurring. He’s got what other talk show hosts don’t got …. drunk smarts.

      1. Perhaps, beyond appearances, Beck is actually smart. But for certain he is a charlatan. Who knows what he really believes. A smart charlatan is more dangerous than a dumb sincere believer, IMO.

        1. Having watched him and listened to him I can say that Beck is indeed sincere. He’s sincere about the things he’s right about, and he’s sincere about the things he’s wrong about. Disagreeing with a man does not make him a fool, a fraud, or wrong in every case.

          1. You think he is sincere, I say he isn’t. How can we tell? He strikes me as intelligent (by his ability to make a totally false proposition believable to his less educated listeners), and if he is truly intelligent, he cannot truly believe the positions he takes. He takes them for the money (a reasonable counter hypothesis), ergo he is a charlatan.

            I didn’t call him a moron, I called him a charlatan. I think the evidence is consistent with that hypothesis–if you’ve got other evidence, cough it up.

      2. Many Hollywood actors and actresses are quite wealthy, despite having an intelligence level that’s only slightly higher than most forms of produce. Intelligence is really not a prerequisite for making money (sadly enough).

  7. Did Glenn Beck sleep through Astronomy 101? Because half the ones I’ve seen usually do the whole heliocentrism vs. geocentrism, including the ‘putting Galileo under house arrest for his writings’ and ‘Copernicus published on his deathbed so he didn’t have to deal with shit from it’.

    And nowadays, people are considered pig-ignorant if they deny that the Earth orbits the Sun or that Mars or the Moon is a planet like Earth that we land robots (or people) on. It’s not just a manner of ‘common sense’, unless you consider ‘common sense’ being what kids soak up from the time they’re in diapers about How the World Works. In other words, if Glenn Beck had been seeing evolution since he was a tot watching Sesame Street and Saturday Morning cartoons and having picture books read to him, he’d probably think about it the same as ‘the Earth is round and orbits the Sun, and the Moon is a rocky ball covered in craters and NOT a perfect heavenly sphere’.

    1. Your second paragraph is why we must fight religious idiocy with everything we’ve got. Absolutely everything. Ignorance begets ignorance. There is no “live and let live” scenario. Religion does harm simply by existing. Children brought up in a religious household are being denied education. If they manage to emerge from their parents’ care looking at the world the proper way, it is a rare exception – not the rule.

  8. Yep, moron indeed.
    What force? Does he mean a proper, evidence-based education? I’m sorry, but if you assist a child to learn the times-tables it’s not forcing, nor is it forcing to provide credible and well established scientific knowledge.
    On the other hand – using fear and guilt to scare children into worship of some deity is undoubtedly forcing of an idea – and one that simply has no basis of credible evidence.
    Glenn Beck needs to stop acting so primitively!

      1. There’s always a pretty penny to be made in being the Walrus leading the clams. For climate denial, Monckton cashed in well. I’m not aware of this Glenn Beck, but he doesn’t sound like the sharpest tool in the shed (or maybe he is – simply riding a cash cow?)

    1. I know, it is hilarious. Beck can’t see around accepting evolution with its stupendous interlocking matrix of evidence, but will accept with no problem if god tells him the same thing! And that is the problem in a nutshell with these creepy, brain-dead fanatics–their imagined god and what they imagine it to be saying trumps evidence and reality. They are truly lame and merit only ridicule.

      1. Actually, if you have seen some of his chalkboard conspiracy theories – with these huge interlocking webs – it’s amazing that he can’t see the facts of evolution. Well, not amazing, he has Faith ™, especially the loony Mormon kind, which is especially resistant to reality.

    1. Not long ago somebody made a very compelling argument that we are monkeys.

      We are vertebrates; mammals; primates; monkeys; apes; and humans.

      We have evolutionary ancestors that can only be described as monkeys (even though we have more recent evolutionary ancestors that are clearly apes). The coccyx — not to mention the rare human born with an actual tail — is sufficient proof of this unto itself.

      If it is correct to classify modern birds as dinosaurs — and I don’t think there’s much controversy about doing so — then it is also correct to classify all modern apes (including humans) as monkeys.

      You are every bit as much a monkey as you are an eukaryote.

      And Glenn Beck, of course, shares a particular trait that modern monkeys are well known for: shit-flinging. God damn, but that man can fling shit with the worst of ’em. The monkey is strong in that one, yes.

      Cheers,

      b&

      1. We are reptiles cladistically as well of course. I don’t know this fellow Beck of course but he sounds like a lizard. No, that would be unfair to lizards.

        1. No we’re not. Mammals are not descended from any species that was part of the paraphyletic group known as “reptiles.” Mammals are a specialized group of the synapsids, which split off from basil amniotes before animals we recognize as reptiles arose. The term “mammal-like reptile” is used to describe some synapsids, but it’s incorrect.

  9. GB is one of the reasons our white coat heroes have been demonized over the last decade. Please, someone send him a copy of OtOoS, and quickly.

  10. Frankly if Glenn Beck did believe in evolution I have to reconsider my position! Let’s just say I’d never want to belong to a club that had him as a member.

  11. Sorry – this is a bit of a false statement: Glenn Beck has been known to be an idiot for a long time.

    1. Idiot, moron, dum-dum—they all apply to Glenn.

      Oh is that ad hominem? Sorry about that. It’s just that, I would feel like an idiot myself if I didn’t refer to him as an idiot.

      1. Ooh – ooh – can I play Concern Troll. I’ll start. You big meanie! Calling that moron and idiot…er, I failed, didn’t I?

        How about…what we need to have is a nice discussion with Mr Beck, and if we are really, really polite and obsequious, then I am sure we can get Mr Beck to see that evolution actually happens. Really. And pigs will fly out of my…Damn. Blew it again.

        Concern Trolling iz hard werk!

  12. “I don’t think we came from monkeys. I think that’s ridiculous. I haven’t seen a half-monkey, half-person yet.”

    Translating Beck: “I don’t think we came from grandparents. I think that’s ridiculous. I haven’t seen a parent yet.”

    1. Exactly – if we came from our grandparents, why are our uncles still around? And why aren’t my uncles half-me, half-grandpa? It makes no sense.

  13. They also had to force that the world was round!

    “The paradigm of a spherical Earth was developed in ancient Greek astronomy, beginning with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most Pre-Socratics retained the flat Earth model. Aristotle accepted the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds around 330 BC, and knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on.

    The misconception that educated people at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth has been referred to as “The Myth of the Flat Earth”. […]

    It has been suggested that seafarers probably provided the first observational evidence that the Earth was not flat.” [Wikipedia, “Flat Earth”]

    Where is the forcing? A gradual spread rejects hypotheses of “forcing”.

    The same goes for evolution, which has gradually spread from science and education, outside of theocratic circles. The difference is that Beck and his peers won’t accept the evidence in front of their eyes (that they aren’t identical with their ancestors). That in turn depends on major religious texts, which are agnostic on the curvature of Earth but not on cosmological time or human ancestry.

  14. Not going to deny this thread’s title, but given the prevalence of “how come we don’t see monkeys turning into humans?”, “if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” and other canards, perhaps we should be asking whether secondary schools are just doing it wrong when it comes to teaching evolution. It’s easy to mock Beck and write him off as a moron (which…well, yeah) but these beliefs are depressingly widespread.

    1. I agree. I’ve often said to evolution deniers that they have nothing to worry about regarding evolution being taught in school, because– if they are anything to go by– apparently no one’s actually learning it.

  15. What would convince me that evolution might not be true after all?

    Two things:

    1. Fossil rabbits in the pre-cambrian.
    2. Right-wing loons accepting evolution.

  16. And Robert M. Price – the Bible Geek and Point of Inquiry host…likes Beck. Thinks he’s reliable, and maybe smart, from what I can gather. But, then again, Price fell for the Climategate manufactroversy, and thinks it is possible that the Babylonian imagery in Ezekiel might be an actual UFO.

    As for Beck and no half-man, half-monkey…hasn’t he seen Rush?

  17. It is like not believing African Americans and Africans have a common origins because there is no one with Congolese-US dual citizenry currently residing in the middle of the Atlantic.

  18. This business does surprise me a little.
    I used to think Mormons weren’t all too much into evolution denialism. After all they take pride in not being crazy fundies.

  19. Beck is right, we didn’t come from monkeys. We did however evolve from ape-like ancestors that were also ancestors of todays apes.

    Forcing down his throat? The only people who force their views upon people whether they want them or not are theists.

  20. “You didn’t have to force that the world was round. Truth is truth.”
    So true. There was absolutly no resistance to the idea that the world is not a disc and moves around the sun. Ever. Why should there?

  21. ‘Idiot’, ‘moron’, ‘lunatic’, ‘clown’ – I hate to say this, but GB should be taken bloody seriously and not simply dismissed as somebody who is a laughing-stock to all of us who know so much better. Admittedly I lost most of my sense of humour at birth (I knew what I was in for), but I retain a bit of one nevertheless, and I do not find GB funny at all. The man is dangerous, not so much in himself as in what stands behind him (those right-wing thing tanks, the money that is available to keep such ‘clowns’ as him in the public eye) as well as in his constituency – those he appeals to and who find him appealing. Influence is power, and he has a great deal of it. I don’t want to aound alarming, but there were plenty of good, civilised Germans who thought that Hitler was a clown when he first came and would be out on his ear in a year or too… This is not just a squabble between science and religion, or between gnu atheists and believers (or accommodationists), but a profoundly political quarrel about the nature of the society we are going to have, and I think this needs to be recognised much more clearly than it is at the moment.

  22. With the risk of sounding like an accommodationist, can I suggest that we split the difference and say that I evolved from a monkey but that Glenn Beck did not.

    Evolve I mean.

  23. Did he actually say he believes “evolution” is wrong. He said he doesn’t believe humans came from monkeys, which is correct. Humans never evolved from monkeys, any more than the Ford Pinto automobile evolved from the Ford Mustang, “..you don’t see any half-Pinto, half-Mustangs driving around.” No, you don’t, because both cars evolved from the Ford Model T.
    Glenn Beck has already stated he is simply a showman, holds no convictions whatever, will say anything, do anything, for show and $$$. This “half-monkey” routine is simply another chapter in his future book, “RODE (How I Climbed Atop the Gigantic Mass of American Stupidity, and Traveled to Enormous Wealth)”. Coming online in 2018. Destined to outsell Harry Potter.
    Cynical Opportunism.

  24. You know what’s just so irritating?

    I have news for Beck: not only did we evolve from apelike ancestors, but there isn’t any “other side.”

    Yes but he’ll never know that – we never get to say “see? see?? told you so!!!”

    That is SO IRRITATING.

  25. While not a biologist, I accept evolution is a fact, but is it a two way street? Could Glenn Beck be evidence of devolution. (The devil made me write this.)

  26. “I haven’t seen a half-monkey, half-person yet.”

    Unfortunately for “monkeys” everywhere [and I apologize for demeaning them, but it’s true] all glenn “peckerhead” beck has to do is look in the mirror!

  27. Glenn Beck is and always was a complete idiot. You’d have to be less than a half educated idiot to believe anything this fool says. This closet homosexual never went to college and never knew anything about World History, American History, World Religions or the US Constitution. He is simply a mocking bird for the twisted views of the John Birch Society and people need to wake up to the fact that Glenn Beck is just another uneducated charlatan who does not possess a single ounce of journalistic integrity. He is definitely not a conservative. In short, he is just another opinion pusher which is why he blends in so well with the bigots on Fox News Network. This self important racist climbed in bed with Satan a very long time ago as lies, half truths, fear and hate are his only products that he has for sale and he is making big money off of impressionable fools who love being told what to think. Glenn Beck is simply a product of mormon cult theology that he mixes with cherry picked parts of Catholicism, New Age Religions and his personal core as a washed up, dry alcoholic. This makes Glenn Beck one very screwed up moron who sold his soul to the lowest common denominator of personal stupidity. Beck consistently demonstrates all the unstable behaviors of a dry alcoholic which include grandiosity, judgmentalism, intolerance, impulsivity, ADD, indecisiveness and blindness to truth. In short, Beck, Limbaugh, O Reilly, Hannity, Palin, O Donnell, Coulter and others like them who think they are conservative are all guilty of perverting truth, history, facts, religion and the US Constitution when they open their big mouths. They are all idiots who live in and speak to some alternate reality of stupid red necks that feed off of fear & hate mongering while being fed a steady dose of extreme right wing lies.

Leave a Reply