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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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”.

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…

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

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.

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.

Hysterically funny.

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!

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

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.”

(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)

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.

“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.