I want to know who made it, where their website is, and where I can email them, I want a higher-quality version of the audio track! I want to use it on my show.
Caution, caution. My immediate reaction after watching this was to excoriate myself for my unhealthy and morbid curiosity about how low the human race could go.
After all, it was for that reason that I accessed Phred Phelps' web hate-o-rama, and was nauseous for days afterwards. I even looked at VenomfangX's little sachets of pufftwaddle, which one can still find on the U-tube despite that charmless little toad being banned. I thought it'd be a larff. It was at first, but it was only depressing in the long run to find that someone - anyone - could be so disconnected as to have no inkling whatsoever of his own affect, let alone of what constitutes actual, you know, reality.
But this voidio goes so far into the woods that it meets itself coming out. On one level, I can get all literarty and remind myself that even the most scabrous of satire and caricature must have, apart from some tincture of wit, some reference to reality. This doesn't have either - unless!
Unless, that is, it's actually ironic. If it were, the wit is found in the irony, and the connect to reality is found in the paranoid delusions and sleazy hypocrisy of creationism, which is what it is actually satirising. Aargh! I can't decide. Put me out of my misery, someone.
SMgr · 28 March 2008
Well I know exactly where I've seen this kind of thing before: Southpark. The same skewering of both sides. The same in your face exaggerated attitude. The same obscure references to history. The same lewd attitude. The same razor sharp comic timing. The same simplified 2D animation style. The deft use of symbolism. The caricatures. The use of music.
If it isn't one of the Southpark guys, its someone who grew up watching them..
marc buhler · 28 March 2008
This clip ROCKS (apologies to geologists).
It exposes "Big Science" like no other clip ever has!!
The Expelled Frauds(TM) could learn some filmmaking tips from this guy.
JRQ · 28 March 2008
I agree its a little over the top, but the parody elements are, like South Park, just irreverent....there is none of the mind-numbingly stupid message content of the kind we get always from creationists -- the actual content is legitimately pro-science. It is hard to believe a creationist would create a parody of the pro-science side in this manner.
tim snead · 28 March 2008
If it is from the other side, they should elevate its creator to grand creationist poohbah. He's the only funny guy they've got. That is a riot.
Holy...! I'm leaning towards the view that this is a pro-ID video, but damn, is it good. Thank dog almost none of the creationists are this witty or talented, or they might be twenty times better at pulling the wool over the lay public's eyes than they are now (and often they're pretty good at it already).
tiredofthesos · 29 March 2008
The beginning has the subtitle "Reporting idiocy isn't really squealing" so it is NOT a pro-ID work.
Check the other links: all to Dawkins or similar vids.
I think it's pro-ID also. We should probably just ignore it and let it die.
jim · 29 March 2008
It doesn't seem pro-ID. Who are these guys? Where are they? Anyone who comes up with something as informed as this is tracking the pulse of the situation. Scientists probably never thought they would be on South Park! Perhaps facts have to be marketed like any other product....+ how did anyone come up with this in such a timely manner i.e. fast? P.S. look at all the dancers!
Dave Luckett · 29 March 2008
I have to admit that watching Darwin get down and boogie has a certain something. Maybe he was a k001 dood after all. Just a thought...
ellazimm · 29 March 2008
I do like the HAL eye of the machine, nice touch. I believe Socrates was mis-identified from Raphael's School of Athens painting.
Peter Henderson · 29 March 2008
Very good. There's lots of stuff on Youtube now which realy is excellent from the likes of Thunderfoot, Cdk007, potholer 54 and of course Don Exodus.
However, if the purpose of this little clip was to promote science then think again. This is seriously underestimating the IDErs/YECs.
In Belfast next month we have a major 2 day YEC conference that will attract thousands. The speakers are not some obscure unqualified missionaries but four well qualified scientists. Ham is an ex-science teacher. Monty White has a PhD in chemistry. David Menton is an ex-assistant professor of anatomy from a prestigious university in the US, and Stewart Burgess an engineering professor from a main university in England. A highly qualified group of scientists, wouldn't you agree ? None believe in millions/billions of years. All accept the origins of life as told in the book of Genesis. Why should the ordinary Belfast Christian citizen believe those atheistic "eviloutionists" or Christian leaders who have compromised over "millions of years" ? But then, I'm sure the folks on the Pandas Thumb are already aware of this type of scenario. :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGF2AxlQsYE
Thomas S. Howard · 29 March 2008
Pete, I think the purpose of this little clip was to be funny.
Andrea Bottaro · 29 March 2008
I think it is pro-ID, or at the very least anti-"new atheist", but who cares. Unlike all the other so-called parodies we have seen so far from the other side, this one is well done, original and funny. They didn't use fart noises, so we know at least that Dembski was not involved.
Damian · 29 March 2008
Some people have no sense of satire, at all. The whole thing is satire and I don't think that it is anti-anything on our side.
- It starts off with "Ministry of Scientific Propaganda" - a nonexistent body, of course - satirizing the creationist complaints about "Big Science", etc.
- At the bottom of that opening screen it says "Reporting idiocy isn't really squealing".
- All of the stuff about scientists being chucked out of labs by a robot specifically built for the purpose is again mockery of creationist claims.
- The things that Dawkins says is a parody of how people tend to see him, despite the fact that he rarely makes such claims.
- The lyrics are almost entirely pro-science.
- They have even gone to the trouble of putting a picture of a squid on PZ's hat!
At 2:40 the street scene appears to be downtown Jackson Miss. Capitol Street looking up toward State Street. This makes sense as a location for the production of such a piece since this is the Baptist heartland. Blue City (Jxn) response to a Red State (MS) religious menace?
Or just me searching for deeper meaning in shallow water?
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
I think I've watched it like 15 times now. PZ's octo-hat and Hitchens' "I heart booze" headband absolutely destroyed me.
OK, who was that other guy in the chorus of three? I recognized
PZ Myers, the headband tips me off to Hitchens -- not surprised
I didn't make him out, I don't pay much mind to the militant
atheist crowd myself -- though I did recognize Dennett.
I would say this is "equal opportunity mockery" except for the
fact that folks who would recognize faces like PZ Myers
and Genie Scott would have to be *very* familiar with the evo
domain. I have also never seen a Darwin-basher, or for that matter
any of the lunatic fringe, who had anything *resembling* this good
a sense of humor. "If I was dyslexic I'd hate DOG too!" really
was a zinger -- "What?! OH!"
If they are equal opportunity mockers we should see a similar
hiphop tribute to the DI -- starring Phil Johnson, Dembski, Behe,
Stein as the MC ... chorus of Stephen Meyers, Jonathan Wells,
Casey Luskin ... and of course Denyse O'Leary getting DOWN!
Frank B · 29 March 2008
Doesn't anyone else see the hilarious irony of Peter touting the credentials of some YEC's. They are smarter than you, they've got a Ph.D, Great, simply Great.
OK, who was that other guy in the chorus of three? I recognized PZ Myers, the headband tips me off to Hitchens – not surprised I didn’t make him out, I don’t pay much mind to the militant atheist crowd myself – though I did recognize Dennett.
Same Harris - though militant atheist crowd is a misnomer
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
I swear I am the master of typos
SAM Harris
Ah, but not dyslexic ... I am reminded of the old Woody Allen
crack about the agnostic dyslexic who lay awake at nights wondering
about the existence of Dog.
Oh yeah, Harris, another one of the ... uh, publicly prominent and
vocal atheist crowd.
I'm still looking forward to the DI doing the rap performance and
Denyse O'Leary dancing to the music ... hmm, lest I forget, of
course she'd be doing a duo with Ann Coulter. Works for me, I'm
trying to lose weight and anything that diminishes my appetite is
all for the good.
Incidentally, I tried to track back to the author, "randomslice",
and he had covered his tracks, no other videos, no data other than
his age was 107.
William Wallace:
The little ho dancing in a bra for her materialist food stamp pimp.
Did you know you can find decaffienated coffee that is every
bit as tasty as the real thing?
mr darkman · 29 March 2008
It may be a viral for expelled, but I found it funny.
It's cleverly done so it was probably down by an outside agency. Its also not really "on message" when it comes to ID, I suspect the angle of "evolution is right, but scientists should not be so arrogant to assume they know everything" comes from the creators of the clip.
rpsms · 29 March 2008
Sounds a little like the nerdcore guy 'ytcracker,' and IIRC he has done stuff for/with Super Deluxe, so that could explain the animation.
Frank J · 29 March 2008
The mind boggles….Panda’s Thumb promoting a caricature (based in truth) of the PT-mafia.
— The one who could make Alfred Russel Wallace deny common descent
"Mafia" is so 2005. Get with the "Expelled" program and call us PT-Nazis.
Stacy S. · 29 March 2008
I know it is pro-science ... whoever made the video knows what Richard Dawkins looks like! :-)
Frank J:
"Mafia" is so 2005. Get with the "Expelled" program and call us PT-Nazis.
Remember ... Darth Vader was a DARWINIST!
Peter Henderson · 29 March 2008
Doesn’t anyone else see the hilarious irony of Peter touting the credentials of some YEC’s. They are smarter than you, they’ve got a Ph.D, Great, simply Great.
It's not that I'm supporting them Frank. I'm just trying to put folks here in the position of the ordinary run-of-the-mill Christian in "Norn Iron".
Most of the people I've come across in Christian circles here aren't PhD scientists. There's a wide variation in their careers. Some are shop assistants. Many are nurses, teachers, or civil servants etc. Probably the same as in the US. Many Christians here possibly do have issues with Genesis and science but many (those not from a science background) won't question what Ham, Menton, White, or Burgess are saying. For them it will only strengthen their faith. Which is why I get angry because this creation conference will attack mainstream science and tell a lot of lies in the process. But then again, when a leading UK geneticist from Northern Ireland (Professor Norman Nevin), and someone who has had over 200 papers Peer Reviewed, states that he believes in a 6,000 year old Earth/Universe and a 6 day creation what do you expect. Groups like AiG are very clever now. Many of their proponents are highly qualified in science and this is what is used to fool the ordinary run-of-the-mill Christian. For many (Christians that is), the fact that highly qualified scientists are doubting evolution will be all the evidence they need. The fact that it is less than 1% of the scientific community will be neither here nor there.
Frank J · 29 March 2008
Peter,
(note: different Frank replying)
I see the same double standard with any science-pseudoscience issue. Granted, most of those scammed by pseudosciences other than ID/creationism are Christians too, but that's mostly because Christians are the majority (here in the US at least). One does not need to be a Christian (or Jew) to get scammed. All it takes is one sell-out scientist, and often not even one, to have the person hooked on the feel-good sound bites of the pseudoscience peddler. Especially if they promise "miracles." Science's handicap is that it can only follow the evidence where it leads. Anyone who has ever run a multistep organic synthesis knows that Nature doesn't cherry pick just because you feel that you deserve it.
Those peddling any alternative "science" already have an unfair advantage in that almost none of those desperate for their products demand rigorous testing. But real scientists are always suspect; nothing they provide is ever enough for those seeking "miracles." In the case of anti-evolution pseudoscientists, those unfair advantages, which are that most students already heard their feel-good but misleading sound bites and have the caricatured view of evolution that they want them to have, are still not enough to please them.
William Wallace:
The mind boggles....Panda's Thumb promoting a caricature (based in truth) of the PT-mafia.
The little ho dancing in a bra for her materialist food stamp pimp.
Well, this is probably the first honest thing I've ever seen promoted by a member of the PT-mafia.
OK, I guess the Braveheart wannabe has completely lost his mind, what little of it he had!
Dale Husband:
OK, I guess the Braveheart wannabe has completely lost his mind, what little of it he had!
Oh, how harsh! Nothing a *tasty* cup of steaming hot decaf wouldn't
fix. Mmmmm good ...
Peter Henderson · 30 March 2008
One does not need to be a Christian (or Jew) to get scammed. All it takes is one sell-out scientist, and often not even one, to have the person hooked on the feel-good sound bites of the pseudoscience peddler.
Indeed Frank. Ham seems to have fooled a lot of people, even those who organise events at the Waterfront. Just have a look at what it says about the event on their website:
http://www.waterfront.co.uk/whatson/performancedetails.aspx?id=39038
Answers in Genesis
09 May 2008 -
10 May 2008
Many people - scientists and lay people alike - are beginning to come to the conclusion that the Darwin`s theory of Evolution does not have the answers. Ken Ham (President of Answers in Genesis USA) has spent three decades delivering the message that the answers can be found in Genesis.
Also speaking at this event will be Dr Monty White, CEO of Answers in Genesis (UK), and Dr David Menton, former Professor of Anatomy at the prestigious Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, and Professor Stuart Burgess from Bristol University.
Gives the whole thing an air of legitimacy, doesn't it !
Frank J · 30 March 2008
Peter,
Notice how, whether from YECs like Ham, OECs like Ross, or IDers like Behe, it's always Darwin's theory that doesn't have all the answers. Never mind that it doesn't even claim to have all the answers. And never mind that they all privately know that competing anti-evolution positions don't have answers (at least not the right answers) either.
It would be nice if a heckler asks Ham point blank, "Do you think Michael Behe, who accepts common descent and a 3-4 billion year history of life has the correct answer?" My guess is that the heckler would be "expelled." And that's from the organization that is most outspoken against competing anti-evolution positions
Dolly Sheriff · 30 March 2008
I absolutely LOVE it!!!
Mike · 30 March 2008
It was made by JibJab, commissioned by the producers and advertisers of Expelled, which won't be admitted to because of the less wholesome elements. They'll claim that our side made it, or let the suspicion that it was go unanswered. There's a reason this advertising is highlighting the atheists. Myers' comments in the movie, now being leaked by Egnor on the DI complaints page (pity PZ couldn't have let us know earlier), is what is going to be focused on by the general public who, believe it or not, are very upset by educators stating that they want to convert children to atheism. This will be the clip from the movie that we're going to see over and over again, along with the JibJab video, and its going to produce "teach the controversy" legislation, that will pass handlily, across the country. This is what will happen if you folks continue with the religion vs science framing. It may already be too late.
ievolved · 30 March 2008
This video seems to be the work of one of the two popular satirical creationist sites:
Mike :
This is what will happen if you folks continue with the religion vs science framing. It may already be too late.
Excuse me, but I've been reading PT for some time now, and although there is a contingent of posters and readers who do frame the issue this way, it seems to me that most of the time the posters and readers specifically say that this is not the issue. I think that the real issue, that should be emphasized time and time again, is the dishonesty of the DI and other creationists, that they lie, quote mine, etc. Of course, pointing out the massive evidence in favor of evolution, and the lack of evidence against it, is important as well.
It wouldn't hurt to point out that the lack of agreement about the science vs. religion issue among those who accept evolution and an old earth shows that there is in fact, no monolithic conspiracy among us.
GvlGeologist, FCD:
It wouldn't hurt to point out that the lack of agreement about the science vs. religion issue among those who accept evolution and an old earth shows that there is in fact, no monolithic conspiracy among us.
This is a good time for those among us who oppose the evo side of
the house sniping at religion to stand up and be counted.
I do not defend religion. I'm not interested in it and regard
arguing about it as a waste of cycles. I cannot think of any
reason for me to pick fights with my devout friends, who are
typically inoffensive ... and to the extent that there are crazy
God-botherers out there, I don't find them crazier than any other
extremists I know.
Now, being indifferent to religion, by that coin I don't honestly
care if someone wants to quarrel over it -- except for the fact that
it seems to be handing the Darwin-bashers the game. As long as the
DBs can push the argument into religion space, they can prolong it
until the sun freezes over. All the religion-bashers can really
say is pretty much what Hume said two centuries ago a lot better
... and religion is still around.
I don't consider refusing to be drawn into the religion feud to be
cutting the DBs slack. On the contrary: I'm not going to let them
get away with that scam. They don't have scientific case that holds
any water except through bluster, the fundamental *logic* of their
argument is completely broken -- they can't make a persuasive
scientific case because *they hate the sciences and it shows*.
It's like listening to someone pounding their fists on a piano
keyboard and trying to pretend to be a musician.
The only issue as far as Darwinian evolution goes is: *Is this the
way the real Universe works or not?* If not, somebody's religion
has no problem, if it is, then the religion is going to have to
adjust -- and how they do that is, simply, no concern of mine.
I don't know anything about their religion and there's nothing I
can say about that issue. If they just want to say: "We don't like
it!" -- all I can say is: "You don't like getting sick, either, but
that doesn't stop you from getting sick on occasion."
Now can I actually make much impression on people by playing "just
the facts ma'am"? I doubt it, but at least I can hold their feet
to the fire, tell them I don't buy their bluster, and absolutely
refuse to let them get away with trying to change the subject.
They're in a box: no matter what bogus smokescreen of details they
try to throw out, the fundamental logic of their argument is
broken.
wamba · 30 March 2008
The video touts Dawkins as a Ph.D., but according to Wikipedia:
From 1962 to 1966, he was a research student at Oxford. He received his MA and D.Phil. degrees in 1966. From 1965 to 1967, he was a research assistant to Tinbergen. In 1989, he was awarded a D.Sc. by Oxford.
Would anyone familiar with the British academic system care to comment on the comparison of any of these degrees to a Ph.D.?
The scene with the researcher being "expelled" for finding something with his microscope is curious for several reasons. 1) ID proponents generally do not do actual research. 2) Also, the evo-informant, named "Boris" and with a (phony) Russian accent, would probably seem unpleasantly ironic to any researcher who lived through the era of Lysenkoism.
kmlisle · 30 March 2008
I am reminded of "Dance Like a monkey" by NY Dolls Here is the YouTube address to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_XEiV-l97o
Frank J · 30 March 2008
This is a good time for those among us who oppose the evo side of the house sniping at religion to stand up and be counted.
— MrG
Seconded!
Maybe they're just cautious, waiting for the movie to come out, but I would like to hear more of the people who defend Judaism and Christianity, but object to "Expelled" propaganda, stand up and be counted.
Mike · 30 March 2008
"Excuse me, but I’ve been reading PT for some time now, and although there is a contingent of posters and readers who do frame the issue this way, it seems to me that most of the time the posters and readers specifically say that this is not the issue."
Excuse me, but that's untrue. Its now clear that the most effective point of "Expelled", which is a slick and entertaining production if the trailers are any indication, is that atheist educators are pushing evolution education with the hopes of undermining students' religious belief. YES, they are motherless SOB liars for presenting three prominent atheist educators as the only reason why the anti-evolution campaign is rejected! But all that the majority of the country is going to see and remember next month is PZ Myers essentially saying that the purpose of evolution education is to convert kids to atheism. I'm not even paraphrasing that much. No, he doesn't use the word "convert", but it doesn't matter. The great unwashed will understand perfectly what he means. And all I see here is everyone celebrating this idiot! I don't care what he's done for evo/devo! If science education, and the understanding of what science is and how its done, continues to be confused and dumbed down, and I believe that "Expelled" will successfully be doing this through the legislation it will spawn, then everything PZ Myers has published will be completely forgotten in less than a generation, even among researchers. His legacy to US education however will live on for many years. If the science does not get out to the general public it will become useless and forgotten.
wamba · 30 March 2008
Mike:
And all I see here is everyone celebrating this idiot! I don't care what he's done for evo/devo!
Go whine on Matt Nisbet's blog, I don't need to read it here too.
GvlGeologist, FCD · 30 March 2008
Mike,
Excuse me, but that’s untrue.
How do you know? Unless you've done some pretty heavy statistical analysis, you've got no call to say that. Neither of us definitely know whether the quote of mine that you quoted is correct (unless, as I said, you've done that analysis). The only part that you can conceivably say is untrue (and it hasn't been established) is the "most of the time" part of my statement.
But we can say definitely that there is (at a minimum) a large minority (and very possibly a majority) of PT posters and readers who specifically do not frame the controversy in the way that you object to. Some do claim that evolution promotes atheism. But many, perhaps most, do not. It is incorrect and unfair of you to imply otherwise.
Oddly enough, I do agree with the majority of your post that the above claim is not helpful. Nevertheless, we can and should point out that it is not an inevitable result, and is not universally agreed upon.
Mike · 30 March 2008
For the benefit of those that don't look at the DI complaint department page, just what is it that Myers says in the movie that he hasn't seen fit to share with us?
"…greater science literacy, which is going to lead to the erosion of religion, and then we’ll get this nice positive feedback mechanism going where as religion slowly fades away we'll get more and more science to replace it and that will displace more and more religion which will allow more and more science in and we’ll eventually get to the point where religion has taken that appropriate place as a side dish rather than the main course. And if you separate out the ethical message from religion — what have you got left — you got — you got a bunch of fairy tales, right?"
Stupid. How could this not get us "teach the controversy" laws being passed all over the country? It would have the same effect in the movie he thought he was being interviewed for. This, and Dawkins' interview, will be portrayed, very successfully, as an agenda of educators resisting the "fair" presentation of "the weaknesses of evolution". Thank you PZ Myers.
386sx · 30 March 2008
wamba:Would anyone familiar with the British academic system care to comment on the comparison of any of these degrees to a Ph.D.?
"3. There's no difference between D.Phil and Ph.D. Oxford and Cambridge adopted different abbreviations for the Latin form of "Doctor of Philosophy". The rest of the world, for some reason follows the Cambridge form, Ph.D. (except Sussex, Buckingham and perhaps York although I am not sure about that). It would simplify matters if Oxford were to come into line with the rest of the world, but I don't see it happening any time soon. There is absolutely no sense in which a D.Phil is superior to a Ph.D. The higher doctorate of science is the D.Sc (Oxford) or Sc.D (Cambridge)."
Andrea Bottaro · 30 March 2008
How could this not get us “teach the controversy” laws being passed all over the country?
Because, quite obviously, PZ (or Dawkins, or whoever is the atheistic bugaboo du jour) is not the spokesperson for science, nor do any of them have any significant influence on curriculum- and standard-writing, as can be plainly established by reading curricula and standards, and this is what should be made clear to the public. They express their own opinions, and they (as far as I am concerned) are welcome to, just as welcome as those who disagree with them.
People with a preoccupation for "framing" would do better, I think, to speak loudly and directly about the subject of the peaceful coexistence of science and religion, as opposed to wasting energies in meta-quarrels. If your concern is that the public will only hear PZ's side, make sure they hear yours too: blog, write to your newspaper, participate in your school-board meetings, go talk in schools. There are a hundred more productive things to do to prevent "teach the controversy" curricula to take hold than reinforcing the creationists' paranoia that the atheists are really out to get them.
Dick Dawk · 30 March 2008
The bodies of the caricatures all look like the same person to me.
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 31 March 2008
I think GvlGeologist has the right idea of where this endless discussion has its greatest strengths.
All the religion-bashers can really say is pretty much what Hume said two centuries ago a lot better … and religion is still around.
Hmm. Why is it then that Russell's teapot has such an appeal - is it not philosophy any longer?
Besides philosophy proceeding, there are also scientists doing so. I hate to bring up the same point again and again, but since he does so effectively (and I have it in recent memory); Dawkins in TGD has also an argument that Hume's thinking isn't relevant in IIR it C.
atheist educators are pushing evolution education with the hopes of undermining students’ religious belief
It may be a point of the movie, but it isn't true any more than that religious educator's are pushing evolution with the hopes of undermining students’ atheist stance. It is fairly easy to understand that if creationism where true there would be no atheists. The problem is with the people who doesn't understand what facts is. This is of course why education is pushed.
If your frame is that there can be a peaceful coexistence of science and religion, your argument pointing to your need of silencing contrary opinion does a terrible job of supporting it. I agree with Andrea (and implicitly GvlGeologist) that a positive argument trumps a negative any time, and especially here.
nameinuse · 31 March 2008
The rapper sounds a bit like MC 900 ft. Jesus from back in the late 80's.
Venus Mousetrap · 31 March 2008
I'd just like to say that Mike is very likely lying - PZ posted the ENTIRE CLIP of that section denouncing religion on his blog on 21st March, and lamented that he had been soft on the issue.
Also, that clip has now been removed due to a copyright claim by Premise Media, although PZ picked it up from a free DVD they were giving away at the show.
nameinuse · 31 March 2008
Yep. Pull up "If I Only Had a Brain" or "Truth is Out of Style" on youtube. I'm pretty sure that's Mark Griffin rapping.
wamba · 31 March 2008
All the religion-bashers can really say is pretty much what Hume said two centuries ago a lot better … and religion is still around.
Actually, improvements have been made on Hume's arguments. Read Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion from a post-Darwinian perspective, and realize that Hume did not have that opportunity. He quickly dismisses the ontological and cosmological arguments, then spends most of his time pounding on the argument from design before eventually acquiescing. If you look closely enough, you can find such astounding "facts" advanced in favor of the argument from design as that no species are known to have gone extinct. A good dose of 19th century science, including natural selection, would certainly have firmed up Hume's offering.
You are right that religionists tend to ignore the state of intellectual discourse on the topic.
Mike · 31 March 2008
"your argument pointing to your need of silencing contrary opinion does a terrible job of supporting it."
This isn't what's being said, and I suspect the assertion isn't an honest mistake. There's a huge difference between being an icon and being silent. I doubt very much that anyone of significance has told Myers to "shut up", and I'm not even addressing him. What I'm stating is absolutely necessary is that the educational and scientific community (you can include Myers in that or not, up to you) focus on the majority misconception that science undermines religion. Science can't procede successfully without the general public understanding, and accepting, peer review. The days when the ivory tower could just ignore the great unwashed disappeared when we became dependant on their money. The major focus of the anti-science campaign is on discrediting peer review. Its easy enough to do. Its elitist, unfair, and the participants very often are, in fact, arrogant. School and public education has to relentlessly emphasize the truth: that scientific peer review is concerned ONLY with the science. There's no reason to fear that biologists, geologists, or climatologists are interested in imposing social change through science.
Myers’ comments in the movie, now being leaked by Egnor on the DI complaints page (pity PZ couldn’t have let us know earlier)
"Leaked"? What are you going on about? It was on YouTube, and I linked to it myself last week, quite some time before Egnor noticed it.
atheist educators are pushing evolution education with the hopes of undermining students’ religious belief.
You quoted directly what I said, and you didn't notice that I said nothing of the kind? Wow. You're as bad as Egnor.
David Merritt · 31 March 2008
The "science leads to atheism", or "science undermines religion" arguments are predicated on a couple of foundational assumptions:
1. That "religion" excludes all religions except the one held to by the complainant.
2. That the specific religion in question makes testable claims about the history or structure of the tangible world.
If a person holds to a religion that asserts a 6-day creation, a global flood, and a literal "halting" of the sun and moon in the sky, and there are no alternative religions available for that person, then yes, the destruction of those beliefs could very well leave no alternative but atheism.
If a person "needs" religion to explain the physical world, then they are very much at war with science.
There are, however, a fair number of religious traditions that make no such claim, and I don't see where they are under any threat from science. Only problem is that judeo-christian-muslims consider those religions as the functional equivalent of atheism -- because they "need" for their religion to explain their day-to-day physical existance.
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 31 March 2008
This video seems to be the work of one of the two popular satirical creationist sites:
Yes, it's up on the "Brites" site, with attribution to "The Brights". (And a confusing future date. Dunno if it is more disinformation, or if something is up April 2. Anyway, the page looks to be added the same or following day.)
That organization must have taken them hard, and the implicit theme and attempts at satire fits well with the video.
Though I looked at some of similar other "art" over there, and confusingly it is as brain dead and juvenile as Dembski's fart animation as opposed to this witty ditty. I assume that if they wanted it more publicly viral they had to hire someone with intelligence and humor, and it backfired big time.
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 31 March 2008
@ Mike:
This isn’t what’s being said, and I suspect the assertion isn’t an honest mistake.
I'm not sure if I have anything to add after PZ's comment, except that you went on to assert the text I quoted:
But all that the majority of the country is going to see and remember next month is PZ Myers essentially saying that the purpose of evolution education is to convert kids to atheism. I’m not even paraphrasing that much. No, he doesn’t use the word “convert”, but it doesn’t matter. The great unwashed will understand perfectly what he means.
So much for "I’m not even addressing him".
What I’m stating is absolutely necessary is that the educational and scientific community (you can include Myers in that or not, up to you) focus on the majority misconception that science undermines religion.
First, it isn't up to anyone person, you or me, to include or exclude educators or scientists, they do so by their participation or not.
Second, this is another argument entirely. As PZ and the others mentioned in the movie has more on their agenda, you can't expect them to support this. So it is also a separate subject.
Ichthyic · 31 March 2008
There are a hundred more productive things to do to prevent “teach the controversy” curricula to take hold than reinforcing the creationists’ paranoia that the atheists are really out to get them.
you mean like misrepresenting what the atheists are actually doing?
bad show old boy.
people like you and Pim keep seeming to forget that it's not the scientists, nor the atheists, that are trying to pass legislation to teach creationism in secondary schools.
You mistake reaction for proaction.
enough already.
Andrea Bottaro · 31 March 2008
Ichthyic, you may want to re-read what I wrote, and then think about what it means. Then maybe you can write a comment (though you can skip this last part, really).
Ichthyic · 31 March 2008
i read it quite clearly:
If your concern is that the public will only hear PZ’s side,
you keep seeming to miss the fact that PZ IS ON THE SAME SIDE.
yeah, I did too the first couple of months I ever visited Pharyngula (that was like, 4 years ago now?), but it quickly became clear that I too misinterpreted his message and actions.
I projected the mere fact he was an atheist onto what he was actually saying in his posts.
I was quickly shown to be in error.
why is it taking so damn long for others around here to see the same?
again, saying that the "public will only hear PZ's side" implies there is a different side.
he has NEVER said science is incompatible with religion itself. he has pointed out the many occasions where individuals have failed to compartmentalize the two things, however.
so yes, I read you quite clearly.
are you reading me?
Andrea Bottaro · 31 March 2008
Ichthyic said:
i read it quite clearly:
Well, then maybe I guess I wasn't clear enough, because I doubt you are that thick.
I was responding to Mike, who was concerned that PZ's and Dawkins's words may convince school boards that atheists are out to indoctrinate their kids into atheism, and pass "teach the controversy" resolutions. I simply pointed out that PZ has all the right to express his own opinions, whatever they are, and that if Mike and "people with a preoccupation for framing" have concerns about their potential negative effects, the best thing they can do to prevent them is to talk directly to the public, as opposed to engaging in meta-quarrels that quite simply reinforce the Creationists' paranoias. Clear now?
Torben · 1 April 2008
Yes, it’s up on the “Brites” site, with attribution to “The Brights”.
Is that a pro-ID site? I think the parody is somewhat grander than fart-noises...
Venus Mousetrap · 1 April 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM:
This video seems to be the work of one of the two popular satirical creationist sites:
Yes, it's up on the "Brites" site, with attribution to "The Brights". (And a confusing future date. Dunno if it is more disinformation, or if something is up April 2. Anyway, the page looks to be added the same or following day.)
That organization must have taken them hard, and the implicit theme and attempts at satire fits well with the video.
Though I looked at some of similar other "art" over there, and confusingly it is as brain dead and juvenile as Dembski's fart animation as opposed to this witty ditty. I assume that if they wanted it more publicly viral they had to hire someone with intelligence and humor, and it backfired big time.
Ha ha. You almost got me there. :)
Venus Mousetrap · 1 April 2008
Torben:
Yes, it’s up on the “Brites” site, with attribution to “The Brights”.
Is that a pro-ID site? I think the parody is somewhat grander than fart-noises...
If it is by The Brites, then it's a perfect example of exaptation... since it's funny to pro-scientists for quite different reasons.
It's April Fools, so several sites might claim to be the originator of the video. However, until the youtube account holder, "randomslice", says something on their own account, I don't think any "I am randomslice" comments should be trusted.
The movie is produced by JibJab on behalf of Expelled: the movie. You remember JibJab? They did that "This land is your land" movie last US election. See JibJab.com
81 Comments
Stacy S. · 28 March 2008
Most Excellent! LOL!
Andrea Bottaro · 28 March 2008
Awesome.
Betz · 28 March 2008
Oh. My.
The phrase "over the top" comes to mind.
But I will admit to laughing at the line "If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog too."Inoculated Mind · 28 March 2008
GREAT DARWIN'S GALAPAGOS!
I want to know who made it, where their website is, and where I can email them, I want a higher-quality version of the audio track! I want to use it on my show.
Justin · 28 March 2008
http://digg.com/comedy/Richard_Dawkins_Beware_the_Believers
sorry for the digg spam
Jedidiah Palosaari · 28 March 2008
That was pretty good, but I can't really figure out which side came up with it.
Rev. BigDumbChimp · 28 March 2008
I think I've watched it lie 15 times now. PZ's octo-hat and Hitchens' "I heart booze" headband absolutely destroyed me.
Rev. BigDumbChimp · 28 March 2008
lie = like
Laughing too hard to type well
Dave Luckett · 28 March 2008
Caution, caution. My immediate reaction after watching this was to excoriate myself for my unhealthy and morbid curiosity about how low the human race could go.
After all, it was for that reason that I accessed Phred Phelps' web hate-o-rama, and was nauseous for days afterwards. I even looked at VenomfangX's little sachets of pufftwaddle, which one can still find on the U-tube despite that charmless little toad being banned. I thought it'd be a larff. It was at first, but it was only depressing in the long run to find that someone - anyone - could be so disconnected as to have no inkling whatsoever of his own affect, let alone of what constitutes actual, you know, reality.
But this voidio goes so far into the woods that it meets itself coming out. On one level, I can get all literarty and remind myself that even the most scabrous of satire and caricature must have, apart from some tincture of wit, some reference to reality. This doesn't have either - unless!
Unless, that is, it's actually ironic. If it were, the wit is found in the irony, and the connect to reality is found in the paranoid delusions and sleazy hypocrisy of creationism, which is what it is actually satirising. Aargh! I can't decide. Put me out of my misery, someone.
SMgr · 28 March 2008
Well I know exactly where I've seen this kind of thing before: Southpark. The same skewering of both sides. The same in your face exaggerated attitude. The same obscure references to history. The same lewd attitude. The same razor sharp comic timing. The same simplified 2D animation style. The deft use of symbolism. The caricatures. The use of music.
If it isn't one of the Southpark guys, its someone who grew up watching them..
marc buhler · 28 March 2008
This clip ROCKS (apologies to geologists).
It exposes "Big Science" like no other clip ever has!!
One thing - PZ should wear more bling now, eh?
Reed A. Cartwright · 28 March 2008
The Expelled Frauds(TM) could learn some filmmaking tips from this guy.
JRQ · 28 March 2008
I agree its a little over the top, but the parody elements are, like South Park, just irreverent....there is none of the mind-numbingly stupid message content of the kind we get always from creationists -- the actual content is legitimately pro-science. It is hard to believe a creationist would create a parody of the pro-science side in this manner.
tim snead · 28 March 2008
If it is from the other side, they should elevate its creator to grand creationist poohbah. He's the only funny guy they've got. That is a riot.
Stacy S. · 28 March 2008
Someone posted the lyrics over at Pharyngula
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/if_you_heard_my_voice_you_know.php
comment # 51
MPW · 28 March 2008
Holy...! I'm leaning towards the view that this is a pro-ID video, but damn, is it good. Thank dog almost none of the creationists are this witty or talented, or they might be twenty times better at pulling the wool over the lay public's eyes than they are now (and often they're pretty good at it already).
tiredofthesos · 29 March 2008
The beginning has the subtitle "Reporting idiocy isn't really squealing" so it is NOT a pro-ID work.
Check the other links: all to Dawkins or similar vids.
RBH · 29 March 2008
w00t! Genie is hawt! :)
Che · 29 March 2008
I think it's pro-ID also. We should probably just ignore it and let it die.
jim · 29 March 2008
It doesn't seem pro-ID. Who are these guys? Where are they? Anyone who comes up with something as informed as this is tracking the pulse of the situation. Scientists probably never thought they would be on South Park! Perhaps facts have to be marketed like any other product....+ how did anyone come up with this in such a timely manner i.e. fast?
P.S. look at all the dancers!
Dave Luckett · 29 March 2008
I have to admit that watching Darwin get down and boogie has a certain something. Maybe he was a k001 dood after all. Just a thought...
ellazimm · 29 March 2008
I do like the HAL eye of the machine, nice touch. I believe Socrates was mis-identified from Raphael's School of Athens painting.
Peter Henderson · 29 March 2008
Very good. There's lots of stuff on Youtube now which realy is excellent from the likes of Thunderfoot, Cdk007, potholer 54 and of course Don Exodus.
However, if the purpose of this little clip was to promote science then think again. This is seriously underestimating the IDErs/YECs.
In Belfast next month we have a major 2 day YEC conference that will attract thousands. The speakers are not some obscure unqualified missionaries but four well qualified scientists. Ham is an ex-science teacher. Monty White has a PhD in chemistry. David Menton is an ex-assistant professor of anatomy from a prestigious university in the US, and Stewart Burgess an engineering professor from a main university in England. A highly qualified group of scientists, wouldn't you agree ? None believe in millions/billions of years. All accept the origins of life as told in the book of Genesis. Why should the ordinary Belfast Christian citizen believe those atheistic "eviloutionists" or Christian leaders who have compromised over "millions of years" ? But then, I'm sure the folks on the Pandas Thumb are already aware of this type of scenario. :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGF2AxlQsYE
Thomas S. Howard · 29 March 2008
Pete, I think the purpose of this little clip was to be funny.
Andrea Bottaro · 29 March 2008
I think it is pro-ID, or at the very least anti-"new atheist", but who cares. Unlike all the other so-called parodies we have seen so far from the other side, this one is well done, original and funny. They didn't use fart noises, so we know at least that Dembski was not involved.
Damian · 29 March 2008
Some people have no sense of satire, at all. The whole thing is satire and I don't think that it is anti-anything on our side.
- It starts off with "Ministry of Scientific Propaganda" - a nonexistent body, of course - satirizing the creationist complaints about "Big Science", etc.
- At the bottom of that opening screen it says "Reporting idiocy isn't really squealing".
- All of the stuff about scientists being chucked out of labs by a robot specifically built for the purpose is again mockery of creationist claims.
- The things that Dawkins says is a parody of how people tend to see him, despite the fact that he rarely makes such claims.
- The lyrics are almost entirely pro-science.
- They have even gone to the trouble of putting a picture of a squid on PZ's hat!
Rev. BigDumbChimp · 29 March 2008
The lyrics point pro-science but who cares. It's hilarious.
Tim Fuller · 29 March 2008
At 2:40 the street scene appears to be downtown Jackson Miss. Capitol Street looking up toward State Street. This makes sense as a location for the production of such a piece since this is the Baptist heartland. Blue City (Jxn) response to a Red State (MS) religious menace?
Or just me searching for deeper meaning in shallow water?
Enjoy.
MrG · 29 March 2008
Frank B · 29 March 2008
Doesn't anyone else see the hilarious irony of Peter touting the credentials of some YEC's. They are smarter than you, they've got a Ph.D, Great, simply Great.
Rev. BigDumbChimp · 29 March 2008
Rev. BigDumbChimp · 29 March 2008
I swear I am the master of typos
SAM Harris
MrG · 29 March 2008
William Wallace · 29 March 2008
The mind boggles....Panda's Thumb promoting a caricature (based in truth) of the PT-mafia.
The little ho dancing in a bra for her materialist food stamp pimp.
Well, this is probably the first honest thing I've ever seen promoted by a member of the PT-mafia.
MrG · 29 March 2008
mr darkman · 29 March 2008
It may be a viral for expelled, but I found it funny.
It's cleverly done so it was probably down by an outside agency. Its also not really "on message" when it comes to ID, I suspect the angle of "evolution is right, but scientists should not be so arrogant to assume they know everything" comes from the creators of the clip.
rpsms · 29 March 2008
Sounds a little like the nerdcore guy 'ytcracker,' and IIRC he has done stuff for/with Super Deluxe, so that could explain the animation.
Frank J · 29 March 2008
Stacy S. · 29 March 2008
I know it is pro-science ... whoever made the video knows what Richard Dawkins looks like! :-)
Frank J · 29 March 2008
MrG · 29 March 2008
Peter Henderson · 29 March 2008
Frank J · 29 March 2008
Peter,
(note: different Frank replying)
I see the same double standard with any science-pseudoscience issue. Granted, most of those scammed by pseudosciences other than ID/creationism are Christians too, but that's mostly because Christians are the majority (here in the US at least). One does not need to be a Christian (or Jew) to get scammed. All it takes is one sell-out scientist, and often not even one, to have the person hooked on the feel-good sound bites of the pseudoscience peddler. Especially if they promise "miracles." Science's handicap is that it can only follow the evidence where it leads. Anyone who has ever run a multistep organic synthesis knows that Nature doesn't cherry pick just because you feel that you deserve it.
Those peddling any alternative "science" already have an unfair advantage in that almost none of those desperate for their products demand rigorous testing. But real scientists are always suspect; nothing they provide is ever enough for those seeking "miracles." In the case of anti-evolution pseudoscientists, those unfair advantages, which are that most students already heard their feel-good but misleading sound bites and have the caricatured view of evolution that they want them to have, are still not enough to please them.
Dale Husband · 30 March 2008
MrG · 30 March 2008
Peter Henderson · 30 March 2008
Frank J · 30 March 2008
Peter,
Notice how, whether from YECs like Ham, OECs like Ross, or IDers like Behe, it's always Darwin's theory that doesn't have all the answers. Never mind that it doesn't even claim to have all the answers. And never mind that they all privately know that competing anti-evolution positions don't have answers (at least not the right answers) either.
It would be nice if a heckler asks Ham point blank, "Do you think Michael Behe, who accepts common descent and a 3-4 billion year history of life has the correct answer?" My guess is that the heckler would be "expelled." And that's from the organization that is most outspoken against competing anti-evolution positions
Dolly Sheriff · 30 March 2008
I absolutely LOVE it!!!
Mike · 30 March 2008
It was made by JibJab, commissioned by the producers and advertisers of Expelled, which won't be admitted to because of the less wholesome elements. They'll claim that our side made it, or let the suspicion that it was go unanswered. There's a reason this advertising is highlighting the atheists. Myers' comments in the movie, now being leaked by Egnor on the DI complaints page (pity PZ couldn't have let us know earlier), is what is going to be focused on by the general public who, believe it or not, are very upset by educators stating that they want to convert children to atheism. This will be the clip from the movie that we're going to see over and over again, along with the JibJab video, and its going to produce "teach the controversy" legislation, that will pass handlily, across the country. This is what will happen if you folks continue with the religion vs science framing. It may already be too late.
ievolved · 30 March 2008
This video seems to be the work of one of the two popular satirical creationist sites:
http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/News/BrightsDance.html
or
http://darwinstories.blogspot.com/
GvlGeologist, FCD · 30 March 2008
MrG · 30 March 2008
wamba · 30 March 2008
kmlisle · 30 March 2008
I am reminded of "Dance Like a monkey" by NY Dolls
Here is the YouTube address to the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_XEiV-l97o
Frank J · 30 March 2008
Mike · 30 March 2008
"Excuse me, but I’ve been reading PT for some time now, and although there is a contingent of posters and readers who do frame the issue this way, it seems to me that most of the time the posters and readers specifically say that this is not the issue."
Excuse me, but that's untrue. Its now clear that the most effective point of "Expelled", which is a slick and entertaining production if the trailers are any indication, is that atheist educators are pushing evolution education with the hopes of undermining students' religious belief. YES, they are motherless SOB liars for presenting three prominent atheist educators as the only reason why the anti-evolution campaign is rejected! But all that the majority of the country is going to see and remember next month is PZ Myers essentially saying that the purpose of evolution education is to convert kids to atheism. I'm not even paraphrasing that much. No, he doesn't use the word "convert", but it doesn't matter. The great unwashed will understand perfectly what he means. And all I see here is everyone celebrating this idiot! I don't care what he's done for evo/devo! If science education, and the understanding of what science is and how its done, continues to be confused and dumbed down, and I believe that "Expelled" will successfully be doing this through the legislation it will spawn, then everything PZ Myers has published will be completely forgotten in less than a generation, even among researchers. His legacy to US education however will live on for many years. If the science does not get out to the general public it will become useless and forgotten.
wamba · 30 March 2008
GvlGeologist, FCD · 30 March 2008
Mike · 30 March 2008
For the benefit of those that don't look at the DI complaint department page, just what is it that Myers says in the movie that he hasn't seen fit to share with us?
"…greater science literacy, which is going to lead to the erosion of religion, and then we’ll get this nice positive feedback mechanism going where as religion slowly fades away we'll get more and more science to replace it and that will displace more and more religion which will allow more and more science in and we’ll eventually get to the point where religion has taken that appropriate place as a side dish rather than the main course. And if you separate out the ethical message from religion — what have you got left — you got — you got a bunch of fairy tales, right?"
Stupid. How could this not get us "teach the controversy" laws being passed all over the country? It would have the same effect in the movie he thought he was being interviewed for. This, and Dawkins' interview, will be portrayed, very successfully, as an agenda of educators resisting the "fair" presentation of "the weaknesses of evolution". Thank you PZ Myers.
386sx · 30 March 2008
wamba: Would anyone familiar with the British academic system care to comment on the comparison of any of these degrees to a Ph.D.?
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2409,Beware-the-Believers,RandomSlice,page5#152142
"3. There's no difference between D.Phil and Ph.D.
Oxford and Cambridge adopted different abbreviations for the Latin form of "Doctor of Philosophy". The rest of the world, for some reason follows the Cambridge form, Ph.D. (except Sussex, Buckingham and perhaps York although I am not sure about that). It would simplify matters if Oxford were to come into line with the rest of the world, but I don't see it happening any time soon. There is absolutely no sense in which a D.Phil is superior to a Ph.D. The higher doctorate of science is the D.Sc (Oxford) or Sc.D (Cambridge)."
Andrea Bottaro · 30 March 2008
Dick Dawk · 30 March 2008
The bodies of the caricatures all look like the same person to me.
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 31 March 2008
nameinuse · 31 March 2008
The rapper sounds a bit like MC 900 ft. Jesus from back in the late 80's.
Venus Mousetrap · 31 March 2008
I'd just like to say that Mike is very likely lying - PZ posted the ENTIRE CLIP of that section denouncing religion on his blog on 21st March, and lamented that he had been soft on the issue.
Also, that clip has now been removed due to a copyright claim by Premise Media, although PZ picked it up from a free DVD they were giving away at the show.
nameinuse · 31 March 2008
Yep. Pull up "If I Only Had a Brain" or "Truth is Out of Style" on youtube. I'm pretty sure that's Mark Griffin rapping.
wamba · 31 March 2008
All the religion-bashers can really say is pretty much what Hume said two centuries ago a lot better … and religion is still around.
Actually, improvements have been made on Hume's arguments. Read Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion from a post-Darwinian perspective, and realize that Hume did not have that opportunity. He quickly dismisses the ontological and cosmological arguments, then spends most of his time pounding on the argument from design before eventually acquiescing. If you look closely enough, you can find such astounding "facts" advanced in favor of the argument from design as that no species are known to have gone extinct. A good dose of 19th century science, including natural selection, would certainly have firmed up Hume's offering.
You are right that religionists tend to ignore the state of intellectual discourse on the topic.
Mike · 31 March 2008
"your argument pointing to your need of silencing contrary opinion does a terrible job of supporting it."
This isn't what's being said, and I suspect the assertion isn't an honest mistake. There's a huge difference between being an icon and being silent. I doubt very much that anyone of significance has told Myers to "shut up", and I'm not even addressing him. What I'm stating is absolutely necessary is that the educational and scientific community (you can include Myers in that or not, up to you) focus on the majority misconception that science undermines religion. Science can't procede successfully without the general public understanding, and accepting, peer review. The days when the ivory tower could just ignore the great unwashed disappeared when we became dependant on their money. The major focus of the anti-science campaign is on discrediting peer review. Its easy enough to do. Its elitist, unfair, and the participants very often are, in fact, arrogant. School and public education has to relentlessly emphasize the truth: that scientific peer review is concerned ONLY with the science. There's no reason to fear that biologists, geologists, or climatologists are interested in imposing social change through science.
PZ Myers · 31 March 2008
David Merritt · 31 March 2008
The "science leads to atheism", or "science undermines religion" arguments are predicated on a couple of foundational assumptions:
1. That "religion" excludes all religions except the one held to by the complainant.
2. That the specific religion in question makes testable claims about the history or structure of the tangible world.
If a person holds to a religion that asserts a 6-day creation, a global flood, and a literal "halting" of the sun and moon in the sky, and there are no alternative religions available for that person, then yes, the destruction of those beliefs could very well leave no alternative but atheism.
If a person "needs" religion to explain the physical world, then they are very much at war with science.
There are, however, a fair number of religious traditions that make no such claim, and I don't see where they are under any threat from science. Only problem is that judeo-christian-muslims consider those religions as the functional equivalent of atheism -- because they "need" for their religion to explain their day-to-day physical existance.
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 31 March 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 31 March 2008
Ichthyic · 31 March 2008
There are a hundred more productive things to do to prevent “teach the controversy” curricula to take hold than reinforcing the creationists’ paranoia that the atheists are really out to get them.
you mean like misrepresenting what the atheists are actually doing?
bad show old boy.
people like you and Pim keep seeming to forget that it's not the scientists, nor the atheists, that are trying to pass legislation to teach creationism in secondary schools.
You mistake reaction for proaction.
enough already.
Andrea Bottaro · 31 March 2008
Ichthyic, you may want to re-read what I wrote, and then think about what it means. Then maybe you can write a comment (though you can skip this last part, really).
Ichthyic · 31 March 2008
i read it quite clearly:
If your concern is that the public will only hear PZ’s side,
you keep seeming to miss the fact that PZ IS ON THE SAME SIDE.
yeah, I did too the first couple of months I ever visited Pharyngula (that was like, 4 years ago now?), but it quickly became clear that I too misinterpreted his message and actions.
I projected the mere fact he was an atheist onto what he was actually saying in his posts.
I was quickly shown to be in error.
why is it taking so damn long for others around here to see the same?
again, saying that the "public will only hear PZ's side" implies there is a different side.
he has NEVER said science is incompatible with religion itself. he has pointed out the many occasions where individuals have failed to compartmentalize the two things, however.
so yes, I read you quite clearly.
are you reading me?
Andrea Bottaro · 31 March 2008
Torben · 1 April 2008
Venus Mousetrap · 1 April 2008
Venus Mousetrap · 1 April 2008
Reed A. Cartwright · 1 April 2008
It's April Fools, so several sites might claim to be the originator of the video. However, until the youtube account holder, "randomslice", says something on their own account, I don't think any "I am randomslice" comments should be trusted.
SME · 12 April 2008
The movie is produced by JibJab on behalf of Expelled: the movie. You remember JibJab? They did that "This land is your land" movie last US election. See JibJab.com
And remember, you heard it here first!
Sean