Canaries: Rep. Jack Kingston derides evolution on Maher

God blows on Rep. Jack Kingston (R–GA)

Before we get into this, I should say that I do not like Bill Maher. He is an outspoken atheist and a vaguely mean-spirited liberal, which means he inspires in me that vague discomfort that comes from watching a person you do not like say what you would say. Those of us who believe that sarcasm is not a form of argument do not enjoy watching Maher snicker his way through our deeply-held positions, which made his discussion of evolution with Representative Jack Kingston (R–GA, net worth $2.8 million, 2009 reported income $507 somehow) a real opportunity to see both sides of a coin of suck. Video after the jump.

Yes, Kingston is from the South, and yes, Bill Maher’s voice seems to bring out the crazy in Republican congresspeople, the way holding a glass of milk in front of your mouth is supposed to make a tapeworm leap out of your neck. Still, that is some old-school crazy. Kingston’s smug declaration that “I believe I came from God, not from a monkey, so the answer is no, [I do not believe in evolution,]” was a surprising throwback to 1927’s most infuriating counterargument, especially from a ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

We’re not talking about some wacky Tea Party freshmen, here. Kingston has been in the House for almost twenty years, and his decision to laugh smugly at the very concept of evolution—without invoking intelligent design or some other stalking horse that argues for creation in at least pseudo-scientific terms—is a sign of how overtly religious the Republican Party has become.

The exchange that follows is also a sign of how difficult it is to actually talk about something around Bill Maher. One of the other guests—whom I’m embarrassed to say I don’t recognize, but I think she’s some sort of fused Joy Behar/Arianna Huffington entity—gamely tries to get Kingston to admit that he at least believes in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which is a contemporary manifestation of evolution. It would have been a great way to force the congressman from Georgia to acknowledge the absurdity of his position, had Maher not talked over her into his slightly-louder microphone the entire time.

There’s a term for that kind of discussion—in which everybody simultaneously proclaims their own beliefs and treats any other viewpoint as laughable—and it’s called “religious.” Even without DL Hughley, herein lies the problem with Maher. Jack Kingston doesn’t have to make a compelling argument for creation on Real Time, because what you do on Real Time is establish your position and then start firing. For a man who claims to reject religion because it lacks a logical foundation, Maher has developed a forum that weirdly privileges claims above evidence. It’s not a debate show; it’s a declaration show.

In this way it reflects our present political discourse, which values personalities above positions and therefore places a much higher premium on making bold statements than on arguing to back them up. In such an environment, for Kingston to say “I don’t believe in evolution because the component organs of the mammalian eye confer no functional advantages as discrete structures,” would be a misstep. When he says he “came from” God, not a monkey, and then adopts the grin one wears during the eating of shit, the viewer files him under “religious, old-timey” and is excused from listening to further arguments.

Whether you like that category or not, it’s an enormous boon for Kingston, who gets to firmly establish an identity without having to worry about seeing it subsequently undone by, say, logical discourse. He has made a confession of faith, in the strictest definition of the term, and the authenticity of that confession cannot be challenged. Never mind that what Kingston has faith in makes not goddamn sense at all. His smirk and his stupid Monkey Defense move us right out of the realm of sense and counterargument anyway.

Such an approach works just fine in environments where A) you have no intention of changing your viewpoint and B) no one else can be convinced of anything, either—for example, cable shows and the Republican Party. It’s toxic for a pluralistic democracy, though. Rhetoric that makes conclusions into articles of faith makes political positions into cultures, and people don’t change their cultures. At least ideally, political parties make compromises with one another. Cultures just go to war, and you win a war with another culture by propagating your own as rapidly as possible. The sound of Jack Kingston, Bill Maher and Joy Behuffington all talking over one another is the sound of democracy stuck in neutral, with a brick on the accelerator.

Combat! blog is free. Why not share it?
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Reddit


  1. We could start by adopting a policy mandating that Senators and Congresspeople be tested for competency in basic math, science, and (WORLD) history. Our kids are simply behind, and our grown population is reflecting our poor education standards and lack of prioritization of education in this country.

  2. We could start by embedding a video that works. Then we can get to work on the standardized test of science and world history which would surely solve our problems.

  3. Does this bloke actually believe this nonsense or is he simply appealing to voters who do?

    Do said voters actually believe it or are they kidding themselves so they retain a chance at entering heaven?

  4. Great analysis of the need for better civic discourse. Yet, while some religious discussions are simply statements of belief and ridicule of other beliefs, many are not. Instead, these discussions are explorations undertaken with sincerity and effort. Religious discussions based on increasingly loud statements of opinion are a sub-set of the larger problem you identify here, joined in kind by politics, sports, economics, and just about everything else. The problem isn’t religion itself but how we approach it.

  5. I disagree, Mike B – the problem IS religion – belief without evidence. That’s what’s so mind boggling about the discussion about evolution – here is the opportunity to hold a belief with ironclad evidence, and yet religious wingnuts aren’t drinking the kool-aid. Why? Because it conflicts with their belief in something for which there is no evidence. Makes no sense. Like you, Dan, I wish two minutes could have been spent educating this nimrod about evolution, but honestly, these people don’t WANT to be educated. It’s easier to simply ‘believe’, and please don’t challenge that or make me think. I’m goin’ to heaven! Shit fire and save matches!

  6. Dan, I like how you slyly incorporated references to the Scopes Monkey Trial. But it was in 1925, not 1927.

    Monkey Beeotch.

  7. [sharing what follows, saw it on the internet. Denzel]

    Big Evolution Discovery !

    British professor Nigel Swiggerton of Chapsworth College has recently found a missing link in the evolution/creation debate. Everyone is familiar with the “stages of man” chart found in textbooks which begins with a naked, hairy, bent over, grunting Neanderthal type which over millions of years finally learns how to stand erect while sporting a 1930s-style haircut. Well, Dr. Swiggerton discovered that someone accidentally reversed the negative. It turns out that the first man was actually standing erect with a short haircut but has been descending over the years until he has finally reached the last stage – the stage at any rock concert filled with naked, hairy, bent over, grunting Neanderthal types!

    (Ran across the preceding on the internet. Are overly blessed, underly grateful Americans aware that Darwin acknowledged the “Creator” on the last page of his “Origin of Species”? Why did he used this term if he meant an “unknown process”? When God allows some American city to be destroyed someday, will surviving American ingrates pray to the anti-Christian, anti-American Hollywood shmucks that the ingrates have long worshiped more than God? Thank God for Rep. Jack Kingston (GA) who does serve the Declaration of Independence’s “Creator” and the “God” mentioned in all 50 state constitutions – a congressman who was recently “crucified” on TV by God-hating shmuck Bill Maher and his fellow “nailers” for daring to uphold the creationism overwhelmingly embraced by America’s founders! For more on Maher etc., Google Jesus-bashers “Sandra Bernhard, Larry David, Kathy Griffin, Bill Maher, Joan Rivers, Sarah Silverman.”)

  8. Conflating discussions of evolution with discussions on the existence of a deific being is the problem. People can have all the faith in gods or spirits or whatever they want, doesn’t bother me. These are things that are by definition beyond the ability of humans to truly observe or comprehend in a logical manner. But evolution is something that can be observed, measured, tested, and repeated. That doesn’t mean that God and science are therefore mutually exclusive. Once, intelligent men believed that the earth was the flat center of the universe. That has roundly been disproved, yet does that mean God has? Of course not. People choose to treat Adam and Eve Genesis (or whatever creation story) as literal truth rather than allegory, just like they chose to treat “god created… and it was good” Genesis when they were threatening excommunication for saying that the planets orbited the sun.

Leave a Comment.