Creationism: that’s a rap

By Phil Plait | March 28, 2008 11:00 pm

There is no word for this other than brilliant, unless that word is genius.

PZ linked to this his own self, and his commenters worked out the lyrics. I wasn’t sure at first who this was parodying, but reading the lyrics makes it clear. And as another commenter pointed out, this is way too hip, clever, and just plain funny to be from a creationist.

ADVERTISEMENT

Comments (59)

  1. Steven

    Wow! That was fantastic! Eugenie Scott sure has some interesting dance moves :-)

  2. Rowsdower

    Yeah, ain’t Eugenie hot? I, too, wasn’t sure on first hearing it, but I like how it came out. I normally loath rap, but this was too addictive.

  3. Pat

    Wow – was that Hitchens with the “I (Heart) (Booze)” headband?

  4. If that wasn’t done by the “Jib Jab” guys, then it is certainly in their style. Especially that it was pretty much making fun of both sides. This wasn’t supportive of science with that opening section of Dawkins putting down the concerns of the audience with arrogant dismissal. I presume that “The Machine” is the scientific establishment that takes anyone who doesn’t “toe the line” on evolution and tosses them out of the “club.”

    – Jack

  5. That has to be the best YouTube vid I have ever seen. That one is going in my Fav’s right now!

    Thanks for sharing!!!

  6. Christian X Burnham

    (Obligatory pedantry)

    Actually, Dawkins would still be smarter than most even if he didn’t have a science degree.

    A degree in science has one purpose and one purpose only- to give your mother something to brag about.

    Having said that- I enjoyed the song.

  7. Darwin raising the roof near the end definitely amused me to no end.

  8. IRONMANAustralia

    Yeah, I guess the opinion of Dr. Scott is what everyone is immediately curious about after seeing this.

    I find this kind of thing interesting because I have similar pro-atheism/pro-skepticism videos in the works. I’ve almost completed my parody of that annoying Creationist video “The Watchmaker” by Kids4Truth:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzD_pJdLIrY

    I just can’t watch something so incredibly stupid and not feel artistically motivated to respond.

  9. Hilarious! My favourite part is also Darwin doing the moves.

  10. Christian X Burnham

    BTW, who would win in a dance-off between the BA and PZ?

  11. bujin

    That was…….. quite disturbing!

  12. Sue Mitchell

    Hey Phil, your title could do with a slight amendment – remove the ‘a’ and ‘space’ and replace them with a ‘c.’ 😉

  13. Yes that was Hitchens with the I heart Booze headband. It crushed me.

    Gotta love PZ’s squid hat.

  14. chief

    Aside from the fact that it is chiefly money that drives religions, I really don’t understand why mysical explainations have to come into the explainations of the physical world. Darwin didn’t say we came from apes, (but who cares) but that we are a product of a long line of changes that gave us a large brain and hand structures that can hold tools. We should embrace the fact that so many steps of development in star formations, planets, life and understanding brought us to now. It is easy to say we just popped into being by something else. Takes away a lot of the things you can be proud of us having achieved.

  15. BTW, who would win in a dance-off between the BA and PZ?

    You’ve just redefined “dancing with the stars.”

  16. Matt

    hah, Dan Dannett!! 😀

  17. Matt
  18. Yo, bro! Great beat d00d! :)

    Reminds me of the great MC Hawking, especially one of his beats called “F*ck the Creationists”.

    Peace!

  19. maggles

    I dunno Phil, seems pretty straight up sarcasm to me.
    I don’t see how this could be criticizing creationism at all, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some smart creationists out there diggin through the crates and writing crazy creationist flows.

    But it was an excellent rap either way (+1 for mentioning aristotle and democritus, woot woot.)

    Now we need a creationism parody rap…

    MC…Hovind……

  20. mathandphysics1

    Awesome video.

    Now if only Google would stop trying to turn back the clock as well.

    http://www.newcomensengine.com/2008/03/googleganda.html

  21. RMPink

    Sounds like Jamie Kennedy. For a voice comparison, check out his rap music video “Rollin’ With Sagat” (Possible foul language in that one).

    Wow, that has got to be the most amazing video I have seen in a long time.

  22. Gary Ansorge

    From Mr. Burns,,,”Excellent”,,,

    Conflict is the source of all great stories. As we continue to evolve, we move further from blind faith to rational realism and the battle between old and new continues. It is in our(rationalists) best interests to understand why humans have such a propensity for faith based systems of belief. I expect part of it has to do with the fear of personal demise. When we ate of the tree of knowledge, we, perhaps alone among earthly critters, became aware of our extinction. Of course we had to come up with metaphors to relate to something “built to last”.
    Personally, I relate to the interconnectedness and continuity of all life but that seems not to be a sufficient reason for many to keep on keeping on.

    GAry 7

  23. Over at PZ’s place there is a discussion going on whether this is a PR stunt by creationists, and in particular whether it is a viral meme to promote the movie “Expelled”. I think this is complete nonsense, and there are several good arguments for this:

    1. The lyrics are pro-science;
    2. The scientific references in the text are far too numerous and knowledgable for creationists;
    3. IDers would not use the word “creationism”. I think this is the killer arument;
    4. The expelled logo is not the real logo of the movie (ducking copyright?);
    5. The machine in the intro is a metaphor for science;
    6. It makes the scientists look cool. Surely if this was a viral marketing campaign run by a PR firm they would not make that mistake. They are not that stupid…

    And finally an ad hominem to please this crowd: Creationists simply can’t make something this awesome.

  24. Navneeth

    Nope, it’s not going to Brahms’ music that’s going to be playing inside my head tonight. It’s

    Yeah he’s the Dick to the Doc to the phd,
    he’s smarter than you he’s got a science degree!
    Yeah he’s the Dick to the Doc to the phd,
    he’s smarter than you he’s got a science degree!

    😀 😀

  25. Thanny

    That’s “Dick to the Dawk to the PhD”.

  26. Doug A

    I really think you have this video all wrong, Pieter

    1. The lyrics are pro-science;
    Its a parody video of scientists. Rappers brag about their accomplishments, even if they are blowing hot air.

    2. The scientific references in the text are far too numerous and knowledgeable for creationists;
    This bothers me. We dismiss the religious in such a callous manner at our own peril. There are plenty of creationists who went to college and know science and history. If you want to win people over, the opening line in your argument can’t be “You’re wrong, because you are too dumb.”

    3. IDers would not use the word “creationism”. I think this is the killer argument;
    Again, the video is from the evolutionary/atheist perspective. Of course the scientists would call it creationism. And any savvy parodist would pick up on that.

    4. The expelled logo is not the real logo of the movie (ducking copyright?);
    This just suggests it wasn’t made by the studio making the movie. Truly viral videos, created by random supporters, aren’t required to use official material.

    5. The machine in the intro is a metaphor for science;
    point being…?

    6. It makes the scientists look cool. Surely if this was a viral marketing campaign run by a PR firm they would not make that mistake. They are not that stupid…
    No, it makes the scientists look arrogant and condescending. Its a classic way to breed resentment and disgust of politicians, etc. ID’ers will watch the video and connect with how they feel talked down to.

    And finally an ad hominem to please this crowd: Creationists simply can’t make something this awesome.
    If you know the enemy
    and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a
    hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy,
    for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
    If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will
    succumb in every battle. – Sun Tzu
    By being so arrogant, as even a scientist I feel the Dawkins/PZ crowd are being sometimes, we are inviting a backlash.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if ‘Expelled’ goes big in the bible belt, just like ‘The Passion’ did.

  27. aporeticus

    As much as Dawkins complains about the backward ball cap meme, he would never, *never* wear a hat like that.

  28. Pat

    No, I think as well that it’s pro science: it’s essentially taking the creationist view – of the science establishment being this giant horrifying machine that ejects the non-secular – and explains that it wasn’t a recent invention: it’s been being built for millennia, so that’s why it’s so good at expelling people with fantasies.

    Granted it takes a few potshots (Dawkin’s dismissal of concerns as “stupid,” Hitchens’ “I Heart Booze” headband), but if it didn’t it wouldn’t be funny, it would be strident.

  29. We need that robot.
    In fact we need several of those robots.

    I want one of those robots!!

  30. 1. The lyrics are pro-science;
    Its a parody video of scientists. Rappers brag about their accomplishments, even if they are blowing hot air.

    So? The lyrics are still pro-science. The chorus is catchy and full of hot air, but the verses are not. They are merely colourful. :-)

    2. The scientific references in the text are far too numerous and knowledgeable for creationists;
    This bothers me. We dismiss the religious in such a callous manner at our own peril. There are plenty of creationists who went to college and know science and history. If you want to win people over, the opening line in your argument can’t be “You’re wrong, because you are too dumb.”

    Perhaps the ones that went to Bob Jones University? Seriously, though, if this were a satire of scientists, it shoots itself in the foot by adding all these references that mostly scientists get. A succesful creationist satire would have different references, ones that religious people get.

    3. IDers would not use the word “creationism”. I think this is the killer argument;
    Again, the video is from the evolutionary/atheist perspective. Of course the scientists would call it creationism. And any savvy parodist would pick up on that.

    The savvy parodist would not want to hurt the cause of ID, which is very much pitched as not creationism.

    4. The expelled logo is not the real logo of the movie (ducking copyright?);
    This just suggests it wasn’t made by the studio making the movie. Truly viral videos, created by random supporters, aren’t required to use official material.

    Sure, but if the video was condoned by the studio (via some PR agency, for example), why would they not use the real logo? And better yet, use Ben Stein’s head to go through the monitor in the intro. That would make a far more effective meme.

    5. The machine in the intro is a metaphor for science;
    point being…?

    The machine as a metaphor for the scientific method is relevant because it is so apt. Granted, it is not the strongest argument in the list.

    6. It makes the scientists look cool. Surely if this was a viral marketing campaign run by a PR firm they would not make that mistake. They are not that stupid…
    No, it makes the scientists look arrogant and condescending. Its a classic way to breed resentment and disgust of politicians, etc. ID’ers will watch the video and connect with how they feel talked down to.

    Perhaps, but I doubt many of the target audience of the movie is into rap music, or has this particular sense of humour.

    The video my not be a hard-core atheist manifesto (successful satire never is), but as a satire of science it fails. It depicts science too accurately, and it does not offer the creationist anything of comfort.

  31. Crap, I got my blockquotes messed up. Sorry.

  32. quasidog

    Why does is have to be from any ‘side’? Creationist or Scientific, its funny. There doesn’t always have to be sides. It’s a pretty narrow view to think that we have these two ‘sides’ against each other and there are no other free thinking people that find the idea of taking a side in this apparent debate a waste of time and largely pointless. Just enjoy it and stop trying to claim the video as ‘pro-(your group)’.

  33. Dark Jaguar

    Eh I guess I didn’t really find the video that amusing. I agree it seems to come from one of those “middle ground” commentators trying to make fun of both sides.

    After all, having a position that is anything but “the middle” is wrong (even though there is a total lack of evidence on one side here and all the evidence on the other, and allowing “the alternative” to be taught in anything other than a religious history class, aside from leaving out all the other religions, deprives children of a proper education). This era is the era of apathy, and everyone’s already decided the correct position on anything is to go “eh” and walk the other way because having any manner of emotion invested in a side, even if all rational logic points to it, might make you look like an “extremist”, as though that has anything in common with suicide bombers who’s “extremism” is a result of ignorance and hatred rather than rational thought and evidence.

    Well I don’t mind being labelled an “extremist” considering that forming the US as an independant nation was the extreme view. Forbidding slaverly outright instead of a middle ground of “we’ll let individual states decide” was an extreme view, but sometimes one end is completely in the right and the other is totally in the wrong.

  34. Sven

    If anyone cares, the original (which is of a much higher quality) is available on mininova: http://www.mininova.org/tor/1278276

  35. IRONMANAustralia

    What I like about this video is the intelligent humour in it.

    “Dicky-D”. :) I think that’s damn clever, and sounds pretty rap to me.

    But my absolute favourite part is the line, “If you don’ know me, you don’ know Dick!”

    As for the arguments about whether the vid is pro-atheism/pro-creationism:

    Personally, I’ll make merciless fun of any lousy argument no matter which “side” it’s on, which pits me against both sides to some degree, (I think that’s part of South Park’s charm as well).

    As far as I’m concerned, there’s only two real sides in a debate: Those people who are trying to discover the truth via valid inference, and those who are not. Quite often, people who are “on your side”, are not using valid arguments, and I’ll tear them a new one just as quick as any Creationist.

    I’m disappointed this doesn’t happen more often among us atheists. I’m sure McCain doesn’t mind if the KKK sends a few votes his way, and Clinton wouldn’t mind if Karl Marx himself wanted to vote for her, but we’re not trying to collect votes here – we’re trying to point out reality. We can’t do that by letting invalid arguments slide because they arrive at a conclusion we personally agree with.

    So I’d give this video it’s due artistic credit and laugh no matter what the case. However, since this is my most recent personal experience with ‘hip’ Christian music:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Blw8G5FiCY

    … I’d be surprised if it were written by an anti-evolution rapper. I mean, those guys have got to give you the “last-frame-in-the-Chick-tract sermon” somewhere along the line, and this video just doesn’t do it.

    Which reminds me, I’ll have to write a letter to my homeboy Kent Hovind and tell him that next time he’s talking to God, can he pass on a message that Jesus is still ‘alright’ with the guys from DC Talk. I’m sure Jesus will be relieved to hear it.

  36. Iron man, that DC talk video is also hilarious. I can’t tell whether it is a parody or for real. Do you know when this was made?

  37. I’m going to be a tad inflammitory here, so sorry.

    Creationists don’t have the sense of humor to appreciate something like this. So, even if it is somewhat ambiguous to what “message” the authors are trying to promote, it’s certainly not pro-ID.

    This was very, very funny. Thanks for posting.

  38. Brown

    If there’s one thing to know, then it is this
    The best science text is called Genesis
    We know that the facts there are true, all righty
    ‘Cause the author of the text was the Great Almighty
    He don’t lie he don’t cry he don’t mystify
    He just tells it like it is, just like this, in Genesis!

    (refrain)
    We don’t need to waste our time doin’ research
    We just study the book of The Church
    God explained there what life is about
    And we don’t need to go checkin’ it out!

    The so-called scientists, guilty of heresy
    Are engaged in a big conspiracy
    To hide the facts with their final solution
    Which they call by the name of “EVIL-ution”
    It’s a scam, total sham, nothin’ there but flim-flam
    Got no proof, it’s a goof and it sure ain’t the troof!

    (refrain)

    Now the (bleep) Supreme Court issued a rule
    That you can’t say God’s holy name in school
    This means creation can’t be taught
    So says the black robes of the “Caught”
    So we resign to show design that is truly divine
    But we eschew sayin’ who designed the whole slew!

    (refrain)

    Let’s teach our kids about a designer who’s diligent
    And creates life in ways intelligent
    We won’t say God, on that we’ll fudge
    But we’ll all know, wink, wink, nudge, nudge
    Our propaganda, “Of Pandas” and a film with a man tha’
    Is cooler than the schoolers, came to fame sayin’ “Bueller!”

    (refrain)

  39. D'Oh!

    I presume that “The Machine” is the scientific establishment that takes anyone who doesn’t “toe the line” on evolution and tosses them out of the “club.”

    My reading is that the Machine is the scientific method or evidence-based reasoning. When we first see the machine, we see the creationist’s version of it: a scientist “squealing” on another scientist and having the other scientist Expelled tm.

    However, Dicky D goes on to say that he, a member of the scientific establishment, can’t really take credit for the machine and that the machine itself is far more effective at expelling bad ideas. He then embarks on the musical history tour of the machine, which turns out, of course, to be a very condensed history of the rise of science. After the machine gets rolling, we see scientists being tossed out in large numbers as their ideas fail to past the test. Not only is the machine effective in winnowing out bad ideas, it also is productive: note the dollar signs the scientists and machine are sporting. Essentially, at the end, Dicky D says it doesn’t really matter what you believe: the machine is rolling and will continue to roll. And it will continue to make “more dollars than Allah.”

  40. Dave Rosthorn

    Hi Phil

    I thought this would interest you: http://jamesomalley.co.uk/blog/?p=845

  41. I think that the very fact that everybody here is arguing whether the video is pro- or anti- science tells me that if it IS anti-science then it’s not working as an anti-science video – if you get my drift. Its message – if there is one – is unclear.

    Personally I don’t care one way or the other – it’s very well written. Got a good “hook” line (“He’s the dick to the doc/dawk” whatever…) and on that basis alone it deserves to “go viral”. Damn – wish I’d written it!

  42. Greg E

    In case you guys don’t get it, the video is PRO-SCIENCE and Neo-Atheists (aka Dawkins and Hitchens). The rap paints religion and belief in the unknown /unseen as something that falls down once the machine “aka science” inspects it and analyzes it in terms of rational thought and fact.

  43. Mike

    If there was a God before, there isn’t now… this killed him with the power of funny.

  44. You’re wrong. This is not the work of genius. It’s the work of ABSOLUTELY-BRILLIANTLY-INSPIRED GENIUS!!!

    Hysterically funny.

  45. Valhar2000

    I wasn’t sure what to think of this video at first, but after reading the lyrics I am quite sure that it is pro-science and pro-atheism. It is not quite as pro-Dawkins, but it certainly isn’t anti-Dawkins either.

    The verses that described historical events are quite telling. Although literate creationists will likely be aware of the people and events mentioned, I find it extremely unlikely that they would protray them in this manner. Forget about the video, and just read the lyrics about Democritus, Wilberforce and the Scopes Monkey Trial.

    It is possible for a creationist to write them like that, but very unlikely, just as it would be possible for someone like Alvin Plantinga to write “The God Delusion”: he knows the vocabulary and has access the te literature that contains those arguments.

    When you look at it like this, and then revisit the rest of the lyrics, and the video imagery itself, you find that it can be interpreted in a totally different. The ominous actions of the machine are exagerations of creationist propaganda on the one hand and exasperated lamentations of scientists and atheists on the other. After all, I remember the “Beyond Belief 2006” conference, in which Joan Roughgarden talked about how she uses Biblical metaphors to epxlain natural selection, and Dawkins then asking why we have to jump through such hoops rather than epxlain it directly. This could be seen as a more wordy version of “Your concern is ntoed and stupid”.

    Then, the arrogance of the main rapper is simply the result of him being a rapper. The “I rock, you suck” theme is called a “dis”, and it is standard in rap. Every rapper I have ever heard does it, and people who listen to much more rap than I do can back me up on this.

    The dollar signs worn by the rappers, and the girl that does nothing but dance around, are also standard themes in rap videos (or they used to be, at least). They are not necessarily and unavoidably denunciations of greed and corruption.

    These are some of the reasons why I have come to the conclusion that this video is not, in fact, promotion for Expelled. It is very well written and produced music and humour, with a message I find congenial.

    The idea that this video has failed becuase its message is nto clearlt understood strikes me as disingeneous. Perhaps, being as interested as we are in science writing, we are simply used to texts that attempt to make their subject matter as clear and unabiguous as possible. However, in art, and particularly in literature, this is often not the case. Writers, especially poets, will try to introduce ambiguity in order to convey several meanings at once, and if possible make those meanings complement and reinforce each other, so that you stand to gain much by taking the time to fully understand the ambiguity. This assumes that the reader will enjoy doing this, which tends to be the case in the target audience.

    An English teacher I once had told me that the best works of literature are the ones that are never fully understood, that always have something left to discover. This video, it seems to me, attempts to do the same, with some, if not complete, success.

  46. Valhar2000, I completely agree. There is friendly satire and hostile satire (for example, this sketch completely killed darts as a serious game in the UK for about a decade), and this video is not hostile towards evolution, atheism, or even Dawkins. To argue it is commissioned by the Expelled people is almost a conspiracy theory.

  47. Curt Cameron

    It’s pretty obvioius to me that the machine is a metaphor for the scientific method, developed over the centuries. The video is so well-done it’s almost scary. I don’t think cdesign proponentsists would even recognize the characters, except for possibly Dawkins and Darwin. The only audience that could appreciate seeing PZ, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, and Scott are the pro-science types.

    Did you notice that the dancing bodies of all the characters seemed to be done by the same guy? Even Genie Scott’s. It would have been fun to get to see her watching the video for the first time.

  48. Curt Cameron

    One more thought – if it were to turn out that this video was created by the Expelled crew, well, in the words of Richard Dawkins, “Goals don’t come more own than this.”

    (Said here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins )

  49. NHR

    Yeah, the video is kinda funny, but I don’t like rap music very much, and this certainly was no exception. I don’t really care whether it is pro-anything or con-something…

    But have you seen the latest Cectic Yet?

    http://cectic.com/129.html

    This “expelled from the Expelled” -thing seems to be all over the place right now… :)

  50. IRONMANAustralia

    This discussion is reminiscent of reviews of the movie, “Team America”. Some people thought it was Left-wing, some people thought it was Right-wing, some people thought it was Libertarian, and some thought it was meaningless, aimless satire.

    Many people were projecting their own values and political views onto that movie. And some people were absolutely incensed and confused by its failure to live up to their expectation that it would completely agree with a particular political view, (theirs).

    Reportedly, many people who were cheering at the beginning, (thinking it was an indictment of George W. Bush and the Iraq War), ended up walking out of the theatre later, when the main character expressed the view that ‘people like Kim Jong-Il’ need to be dealt with by military force.

    Whatever the case, there is almost certainly a similar phenomenon going on here – in which people try to bash this square peg of a rap video into the neat round hole of their personal philosophy.

    And when they find it doesn’t fit, they conclude it is the opposite view. For example: Maybe you think it’s “disrespectful” for someone who is pro-Dawkins, to refer to him as “Dicky”, or “gives ammo to the opposition” to make reference to the expulsion of scientists as if it were indeed some intentional and conscious result of the monolithic scientific community.

    On the other hand, maybe you don’t think Creationists have got it in them to be so blithe and brazenly sarcastic about their own beliefs – even going so far as to use vulgarity, or allusion to the same, [bleep]-ing thing. Maybe you think Dawkins would find this insulting – in which case it’s possible that you don’t know Dick.

    I wouldn’t put either scenario out of the ballpark, and neither would I assume the view of any one person to be a cookie-cutter slice of any political party or philosophical “ism” – except for Michael Moore, who’s astoundingly hypocritical and obdurate view seems to violate the laws of physics, (but not the laws of Michael Moore’s personal economics).

    For example, I’m a big fan of James Randi, and I support his work, but that wouldn’t stop me from saying what I believe to be true in relation to him in my own personal style.

    For example, once I posted about his crotchety rant on the SGU podcast, where he went on about the inadequacies of his mobile phone manual. If you read it, you might assume I dislike Randi, or disagree with him on a fundamental philosophical level and must be working for Sylvia Browne or something.

    No. I just don’t think it’s realistic to expect a mobile phone to come with a manual explaining every possible function.

    It is likewise a frequent expectation of the older generation, that they will get a paper manual explaining everything their new PC does, (as if they are going to get a manual that tells them how to operate Google, the Youtube site, or which button on the keyboard to press to, “make ebay go”, or something).

    Bottom line: Randi just doesn’t get it. And most old people don’t.

    But that didn’t stop everyone from quietly nodding, agreeing, and failing to tell him that the problem is that he’s just old – and probably not an oversight of the phone company at all.

    What I’m trying to say is, you can’t expect everyone who’s “on your side” to agree with you on every point, or the manner in which the message should be delivered. And just because it doesn’t match the manner YOU THINK is “appropriate”, doesn’t mean the opposite philosophy is what’s being expounded.

    B the way, here’s another reason to jump to the conclusion that I’ve got it in for Randi, if you are so inclined:

    http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=James_Randi&oldid=2362025

    @Pieter Kok

    A short version of that DC Talk clip used to play with extreme, (and I do mean extreme), frequency on a commercial television station down here. There is an organisation called the “Christian Television Association” that claims responsibility for these lame ads, (hell if I were them, I’d claim responsibility for the 9/11 attacks before I’d take the blame for this garbage). I am also under the impression that they get some kind of deal on air time due to the “community message” nature of their insipid schlock, so it winds up being some kind of “time-filler” when nobody is actually paying for advertising “space”.

  51. SuperCorgi

    I loved it. I hate rap but I found it hilarious and the lyrics were catchy. I think it’s a clear parody of the Expelled position that there’s this huge conspiracy by the scientific establishment to suppress alternate views. It takes this claim and exaggerates it to the point of ridiculousness and thereby shows how ridiculous the claim is. It’s a standard tactic of parody — take a point and expand it to it’s most extreme conclusion and thereby show how silly the point is.

    It also points out that this claim is nothing new, that it’s been out there a long time and that Expelled is just trying to wrap it up in new packaging. The machine represents the scientific “establishment” but shows how ridiculous it is to think that there’s this huge secret conspiracy that could actually construct a huge monster machine to remove questionable scientists.

    Plus, who could resist PZ Meyers in a squid hat!

  52. M

    I really don’t understand the need for some of you individuals to claim that all “creationists” or “religious” wouldn’t properly understand this video or anything else for that matter because they are too stupid or something.

    It’s really degrading and shows how little you actually respect and value other human beings. Rather disgusting really.

    I, for one, don’t buy into I.D. and I support Evolutionary Theory from a Theistic perspective. As a Theist, I am naturally a Creationists (though not in the sense that the term is used). At the same time, however, though I do not wish to be arrogant, I don’t think myself “stupid” or anything else similar in that manner.

    And I really don’t appreciate basically being dehumanized because I’m a Theist. When you claim I’m not even capable of a rational thought, I find that very dehumanizing.

    Perhaps if you are interested in the truth and giving our knowledge you should start reshaping the way you look at your fellow brothers and sisters.

    Peace.

  53. M

    <<<<>>>

    I agree to a point, but I would say that this particular issue does require a middle ground.

    Scientists have no right to impose God or exclude him from Empirical data. Science is about studying the natural world, not about claiming that God either does not or does exist (though it may at some point find it, which I doubt).

    I think Dawkins and his “crew” are extremists. I think many of the I.D.ers are extremists.

    I think that we should stop bastardizing science to suit needs that can be solved by other means (Philosophical discourse, etc.). And I really think people from both sides should stop thinking so little of one another. It’s sickening.

  54. quasidog

    Well said M. I wholeheartedly agree. It has become just another form of bullying to many. If someone cannot form an argument without resorting to abuse that person is just bullying; that is, trying to force his opinion on others by attempting to make them feel inferior. We all know bullies that employ physical abuse to force others to comply does not make the bully correct. If a bully says ‘pigs fly’, and you explain to him why they don’t, and the bully beats you up until you agree with him … well .. is he really right? Even if the Bully forces someone to agree with him on something that is actually correct, the tactic of bullying undermines the Bully’s credibility. Witnesses to the event may assume that the Bully’s victim just agreed to stop the beating.

    An ‘intellectual bully’ that metaphorically beats someone into a state of correction has far less credibility than someone that corrects a persons point of view by just using logic and good manners.

    I am for good, well mannered debate on any issue. A verbally abusive debate becomes tedious and noisy, and the main points are often lost amongst the emotion.

  55. haha

    “Scientists have no right to impose God or exclude him from Empirical data.”

    Considering there’s no empirical data for god I’d say it’s a-ok for scientists to exclude him from said data.

  56. Jiminy Cricket

    I should be amazed that anybody could actually be so dumb as to consider this brilliant p*ss-take an “evolution” creation (excuse the pun), but as you will see, it’s not too hard to make monkeys out of evolutionists and the source of this wonderful parody will certainly do that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUt7nZdUJIk&feature=related
    The comments from evolutionists that I’ve seen on various sites about this, in light of what any intelligent person could have figured out easily from the initial video, has been almost funnier than the video itself but embarrassing to read.

    Most of them viewed it and couldn’t even figure out the obvious, but instead mutually analysed it to death, made jokes about creationists together and marvelled at how great a job the video did, and how brilliant the guys were and how no creationist could ever be this funny and blah blah blah – without even figuring out it was taking the micky out of them the entire time. Oh dear! (isn’t that what they always do? Misinterpret anything to fit in with their preconceived belief system and make fools out of themselves in the process)? Still, it provided a few extra laughs. Just confirms the videos message even more! 😉

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

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

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+