Evolution: that's a rap

By Phil Plait | February 18, 2010 11:05 am

I met Baba Brinkman at TAM London, and wasn’t sure what to make of him. He’s a big guy, noticeably white, and raps. About evolution.

OK then. Well, being a skeptic I had to wait for the evidence. So when he performed on stage I was attentive, and my scientific curiosity was quickly satisfied: he’s the real deal. He’s a great rapper, spontaneous, funny, and very intelligent. He had everyone in the audience rapping with him, which was awesome to behold.

And, via Hemant Mehta’s The Friendly Atheist blog, you can see for yourself:

Cool. If you get a chance to see him perform, take it.


* Or whatever the kids these days are saying when they’re on my lawn.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Cool stuff, Religion, Science, Skepticism

Comments (16)

Links to this Post

  1. Rap Troubador Tackles Darwin « Pasco Phronesis | May 8, 2010
  1. Yeah, I wish I could be that cool. (Then again, only geeks would think I was cool so…)

    But nevertheless, cool video. I hope I get to see that guy in person myself.

  2. Peptron

    When I watch a video like that I cannot help but get this feeling: that somebody would make a video explaining something about the physical world, such as the fact that snowflakes are crystals of frozen water, but not so much to explain the physics of snowflake formation, but rather to attempt to counter a widespread belief that snowflakes are hyperdimensional micro-aliens from planet Xornov.

    That might be because I’m not from the United States… When seen from outside, the debate about evolution is completely surreal.

  3. The Naked Scientists played an hour of his show last summer…I listened to it while training for a half-marathon and loved it (and blogged it :)


  4. For people that may need ammunition for evolution discussions, there is Facts, not Fantasy.

    A short sampling (and don’t forget the sub menus):

    * It’s just a theory.
    Yes, just like gravity is “just a theory”. Anti-evolution types tend to not understand what “theory” means in a scientific context. It means that the idea started out as an hypothesis, based on observation; that researchers made predictions based on the observations and the hypothesis; that they collected more data, tested those predictions and re-examined the original ideas, and that this process has been done over and over and over until the idea is supported by so much evidence that it is as close to fact as science can come. Further, like any theory in science, it can be falsified if some new data comes along showing it to be wrong. Contrast this with the “theory” (and I use the quotes on purpose, there) of Intelligent Design or Creationism. ID consists pretty much only of questioning evolution. It makes no predictions. It has no research testing any ideas. It cannot be falsified. The “evidence” provided of supposed irreducible complexity does not rule out evolution of the structures examined, nor does it show how such a structure may have been designed and created as is. In short, though evolution deniers claim that ID is a theory, it is not.


    * There are no transitional fossils.
    Every fossil, and indeed every living creature, is transitional between an older form and a newer (or yet to come) form. We have a pretty good collection of fossils that show a transition from older forms to newer forms, such as the transition of large land mammals to whales. Scientists using the Theory of Evolution have even predicted a transitional form and where to find it. This transitional fossil, tiktaalik, was found based on these predictions. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14952


    * Evolution denies god(s).
    Nothing in the Theory of Evolution denies the existence of god (or any other deity). At best, it merely contradicts a literal interpretation of either of the two biblical creation stories (and any of the countless other creation stories from other religions/cultures). All that the theory of evolution does is show how everything came to be the way it is without the need for god(s).


    * Evolution says that life just sprung out of nowhere.
    Not true. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the origins of life. Rather, the theory examines how life changes over time and across environments after it already exists. There is a branch of science, however, that is examining the origins of life: abiogenesis. But, that is currently separate from the ToE and is still in its infancy, scientifically speaking.


    * Why not teach the controversy?
    That’s just the thing, there is no real controversy! The only controversy is that which has been manufactured by creationists and intelligent design proponents. Sure, there may be specific elements where one scientist may disagree with another scientist, but those are specific mechanisms and particulars of the theory, not the entire theory itself. By this same logic, one should teach the “stork” theory of human reproduction.


    * Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics

    This statement not only highlights a poor understanding of evolution, but also of all physics. First of all, the earth itself is not a closed system. The sun provides a great deal of energy for order to be built from. Not only that, but given how the volume of the universe is increasing by an order of three dimensions, and entropy is generally a linear equation, the “room” for order is actually constantly increasing in the universe (which is really beyond the scope of this discussion). Suffice it to say that all in all, deniers of evolution consistently show a poor understanding of nearly all aspects of science.


    * What about the list of scientists that disagree with Evolution?

    This list is probably one of the most dishonest pieces of propaganda out there. It was put together by the “Discovery Institute” (an organization with no credentials and fewer scruples). The list of “scientists” generally are not scientists, and if they are, most are not in any way qualified to talk about biological evolution. Also, the initial statement as presented to some scientists was twisted as to project a meaning different from what the actual reputable scientists contend. Just because a certain aspect may be in question, the entire theory is in no danger of suddenly falling out of favour. This video may give you some insight into the nature of that list.


    * Do you honestly think that all this came about by chance?

    Again, this shows a fundamental misunderstanding and denial of basic chemistry, physics, and even biology. While there are certain “random” elements involved in evolution and pretty much every natural process, keep in mind that the “room” for order in the universe is increasing. Not only that, the majority of processes are not at all left to chance, but rather follow very natural and orderly constraints of the universe.


    * What about the “Irreducible Complexity” of the eye, blood, flagellum, etc.?
    Well, first of all, “irreducible complexity” is a non-sense term invented by creationists and intelligent design proponents. All it really says is that they can’t possibly understand a particularly complex mechanism, so therefore something else did it. The basic premise behind irreducible complexity is to take a well designed item, remove a part to break it, and proclaim that it’s broken… The problem is that it’s entirely backwards thinking, and doesn’t take into account how something was actually built up. Every single item of irreducible complexity has an answer, however creationists and intelligent design proponents will keep throwing out examples of complex systems until they hit upon one that their debate opponent may not have all the facts on. As soon as they find that one thing that someone may not know the answer to, they proclaim victory for their entire side, totally ignoring all the other instances where their argument was trounced.


    * What about the woodpecker’s tongue, the panda’s thumb, the whatever’s thingy, etc.?
    Again, this is all part and parcel of the “throw enough poo at your opponent, and eventually you’ll hit on something they don’t know” strategy. Most of the things that creationists and intelligent design proponents will throw out are horrid misunderstandings of the basic biological mechanisms at work, so not only are you debating evolution with them, but you need to correct them on how whatever strawman they have thrown out is wrong from the sense of basic biology, not only from an evolutionary standpoint.


    These are only some of the more common and oft repeated arguments. Those who deny evolution are really denying nearly ALL science that has been conducted in the past 200 years, and the sheer amount of education needed to catch them up to reality is nearly insurmountable. Many other authors have attempted to get to the root of the arguments, and we have reproduced a couple of them (with the author’s permission) in the sub-menus for this page. Please read those as well. I also encourage folks to read the works of Victor J. Stenger. Many of his works deal with a lot more detailed science that even more handily refute the ridiculous notions of those who deny evolution.

  5. JenniferBurdoo

    My hearing isn’t great. What was his last line — “According to Darwin, creationism is — ?”

  6. ExplosiveCheese

    Eh, he’s ok, but he’s no MC Hawking

  7. Bob_In_Wales

    If anything that has not been proven has to be called a “theory” and if creationists are going to insist that we always refer to “the theory of evolution” would an appropriate response not be for us to play them at their own game and say that they believe in “the theory of God”?

  8. …and you can download his album for free:

    though he asks for a donation, it’s well worth it.

  9. Cobey

    WOW! I wasn’t expecting anything as awesome as that! Baba Brinkman’s a genius. He’s the best of the best of the best of the best

  10. DennyMo

    Hmm, a white guy calling another white guy a “great rapper”, ohh the irony meter wants to spin the needle off the dial.

  11. “Hmm, a white guy calling another white guy a “great rapper”, ohh the irony meter wants to spin the needle off the dial.”

    We are all Africans.

  12. Per

    It is always somewhat odd when science, or in this case belief in science, manifest itself in extremes very alike to religious fanatism.

    I guess it comes with the -ism.

  13. Stubby

    The video doesn’t do him or the song justice. The full version is available for streaming on his website http://www.myspace.com/bababrinkman and is much better.

    I particularly like the part right near the end…

    Everybody’s always talking about,
    Do you believe in evolution?
    Do you believe in creationism?
    Nobody believes in evolution.
    You either understand evolution or you don’t.
    There’s nothing to believe, it’s something to perceive, feel, experience.
    Do you believe in gravity? come on, you can see it with your own eyes, you just got to look.

    I think this is a great point. Saying that we believe in evolution is just helping the ID crowd. Its like the ‘just a theory’ argument. Its wrong and misinterpreted but they use it to muddy the waters and confuse the uninitiated.

  14. I still prefer MC Hawking’s “F*ck the Creationists” and “What we Need More of is Science.”


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


See More

Collapse bottom bar