Evolution According to THE SIMPSONS & FRIENDS… just for fun!

If you have read through any of the old posts dealing with science, you will know that I have an open posture towards evolutionary biology. Now, if this alarms you, you should also note that I hold to what is popularly called “Theistic Evolution” or “Evolutionary Creationism” or “BioLogos.” One of my favorite shows is The Simpsons.  Enjoy the “Evolution of Homer Simpson.” Then, skip down to a classic conversation from Friends…


Also, here is a dialogue between Phoebe and Ross on Friends…

If you have lots of time, you can watch a segment of a Simpsons Episode that deals with the Creation vs. Evolution debate in a way that makes light of this ridiculously unnecessary dichotomy! Watch Here

What thoughts do these videos bring to mind? Have some fun with this!

"But of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels of heaven, ..."

Cosmic Signs Don’t Signal a Rapture ..."
"All I have to say is this: You are absolutely right, & your article makes ..."

Sometimes Reading the Bible Literally is ..."
"Very interesting and makes total sense, thanks for writing it!"

Name Change Myth: Saul Never Became ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • awesome Kurt I love biologos! My journey began with AnswersinGenesis, then to Reasons to believe and finally to Biologos.

  • Tucker

    Hey Kurt, thanks for sharing this. I actually found Pheobe’s point of view really appealing. Religious people and atheists are both vulnerable to the same error- assuming that the world and all of its mysteries (the details of how it began, the minutia of how it works, the timeline of where it is going) are essentially knowable. That these questions have definitive, factual answers which one ideology has correctly discerned and another hasn’t.

    From my point of view, faith and faithfulness are not about having the right answers to these sorts of questions, not about proving our ideology over-and-against all others. Faith is about embracing mystery, recognizing that God is bigger than we can “know” in that sense of the word, as is God’s creation. We experience the formative meaning of the Genesis story, and we allow it to shape us into people who will act faithfully, with love equity and mercy, in the present.

  • Thanks for posting those video segments, Kurt. It’s good to have a laugh at ourselves on a somewhat regular basis. We can take ourselves much too seriously, I’m afraid.

    I’m open to evolution, without being convinced that it’s ‘proven’. I don’t have the scientific understanding to be able to prove or disprove it (and just can’t work up enough interest to really try to grasp all of the arguments pro and con). One thing of which I AM convinced, though, is that the Genesis account was never intended to be taken literally. Doing so just leads to absurdities. It is a metaphorical story to promote the truth that everything comes from God, without ‘literally’ describing the process by which that happened. I love the statement of Origen: “What man of sense will agree with the statement that the first, second and third days in which the evening is named and the morning, were without sun, moon and stars, and the first day without a heaven. What man is found such an idiot as to suppose that God planted trees in paradise in Eden, like a husbandman, and planted therein the tree of life, perceptible to the eyes and senses, which gave life to the eater thereof; and another tree which gave to the eater thereof a knowledge of good and evil? I believe that every man must hold these things for images, under which the hidden sense lies concealed” (Origen – Huet., Prigeniana, 167 Franck, p. 142).

    Science and the Bible simply are not at odds, when one approaches the Bible in a non-literalist way. I’m quite happy to allow science to discover whatever it can about this universe and its origins, while allowing the Bible to provide spiritual guidance – using both reason and intuition in understanding both.

  • mystic, thanks for that quote from Origen! It’s absolutely priceless, and sums up my feelings exactly vis-a-vis Gen. 1-2. I’m glad to know someone generally regarded as a “church father” said such similar things so long ago.

  • Dan Martin – Ah! I’m glad someone else enjoys that quote. You can find a ‘treasure trove’ (in some of those ancient ‘Fathers’) of interesting ideas which or ‘super orthodox’ friends today would label ‘modernism’ and ‘liberal heresy’! If you read my comment on the article “Kingdom Killing of Canaanites? Genocide and Joshua…” (http://groansfromwithin.com/2010/03/10/kingdom-killing-of-canaanites-genocide-and-joshua/) you can find some statements of Clement of Rome (1st century – at least it’s attributed to him, and was written in either the 1st or 2nd century), the Jewish theologian Moses Maimonedes, and the “Zohar”. If you appreciated that quote from Origen, you will probably like those others also.

  • Oh, by the way, I’m ‘mystic444’. I hadn’t noticed that my name showed up that way in some of my comments.

  • I’m with you, Stephen, on finding some real gems among the fathers (some real doozies too. . .have you read Hyppolytus describing how one should be prepared for baptism? Like in the nude?).

    I referred to Tertullian and Hyppolytus myself when writing on war & peace a few months back. . .

  • Garrett Zajac

    The problem is that Origen is running a fine line between myth and historicity. God works historically, submitting himself to historical conditions and using secondary and tertiary means to carry out his plans. We see this in Christ (Christ being a Jew in Occupied Palestine around 4-6A.D.), how Scripture came about (using particular cultures, contexts, and languages), and perhaps even in creation. Just let’s be careful not to canonize Origen or baptize his methodology that doesn’t hold up to literary criticism just because he’s a church father. and recognize the tightrope we’re walking when we play with the principle of God not acting historically.