Home » Intelligent Design » Science Bloggers: Hook, line, and sinker

Science Bloggers: Hook, line, and sinker

I’ve spent several hours reading all the reactions to the Age of the Machine video (see my previous post) and checking out where it’s been posted. Except for Uncommon Descent it’s all on Science Blogger websites and the reaction is fascinating.

Almost without exception it’s being called brilliant in artistic execution. There’s just about an even split on who it disses more, scientists or creationists. But not on Uncommon Descent where everyone thought it was dissing scientists.

Here’s my take. There are two messages in it aimed at two different audiences.

One message is visible to a mass audience. That message is repeated over and over in the chorus that scientists, biologists in particular, are smarter than “you”. For the average person, the vast majority who aren’t scientists, that’s an insult. To a corporate executive or small business owner earning 10 times an academic scientist’s salary it’s a joke. Along with this a mass audience easily sees one scientist innocently saying “maybe there’s something more than natural selection going on here” and another evil scientist calling in the machine to throw him out on the street for questioning natural selection. The mass audience also plainly sees “EXPELLED” stamped on his forehead like a scarlet letter with the off-center X characteristic of the Expelled movie logo. So the mass audience sees exactly what the producers of Expelled would want them to see. That’s the only message that anyone here at Uncommon Descent saw.

Now on the science blogs the nerd boys clearly saw another message buried in the lyrics. Among other subtleties that go by too quickly and are drowned out by the chorus and visual effects:

We might have lost at Scopes, beaten down by the dopes,
and the stooges of popes, but in losin’ we coped,
becomin’ more than we hoped,
creationists slipped on the soap of their own slippery slope.

You see, this battle’s been ragin’ since Zeus was on the bottle,
‘tween Science like Democritus and Faith like Aristotle,?
who said the mover was unmovin’ like some magic trick,
but that’s no good logic, my posse is far too quick for this religious schtick.

(HT to Mark Norris for the above quotes).

These certainly don’t look like something our camp would write and does indeed give it something of a pro-evolution spin once you read it. It’s a message inside a message. To someone who reads the lyrics, knows the history, and is a scientist or scientist wannabe who believes scientists ARE smarter than “you” the subtle message appears to be the true message.

But who exactly sees the subtle message? As far as I can determine the only people who see it are science bloggers (Panda’s Thumb, Pharyngula, and a few other pro-evolution sites). People who have a rather deep knowledge of the history of the creation/evolution debate. And let’s face it, even among scientists that’s a small minority as most of them have lives where there’s no time or motivation to be concerned about this. It’s below the radar screen. They have jobs, kids, mortgages, politics, and televised sports worry about or take up their leisure time.

So what’s going on here? Clearly the creators (presuming the video didn’t evolve by chance & necessity :lol: ) intentionally put both messages in it. Just as clearly they made one message visible to a mass audience and the other visible to a tiny audience.

Here’s what I think. The producers of Expelled commissioned this video and knowingly made it appealing enough, ambiguous enough, to the science bloggers so that they’d help spread it around, which is exactly what they did. What happened here, I’m guessing, is that people with marketing degrees are playing people with science degrees like a fiddle. Who’s smarter than who now, eh?

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

56 Responses to Science Bloggers: Hook, line, and sinker

  1. I think it’s a testament to the creators of the video, whoever they are, that no one can agree on which side it’s on! Even Richard Dawkins, on his own blog, had to ask his readers: Is this for us or against us?

  2. A lot of people don’t even know that the Darwinist’s lost Scopes. It is typically creationists that are tirelessly pointing that fact out.

    But here is what I think. The video is a caricature of the Darwinists and the types of things they think and believe. The lyrics are just to lampoon the point of view of Dawkins and others and how they see the world. i.e. how they see themselves as intellectually superior and prevailing in a long struggle against faith and belief.

  3. Dave,

    That’s exactly what I thought! Oh, the rich deliciousness of PT-bots infected by a Premise Media viral video!

  4. I think Jehu’s right. The song and the video are told (satirically) from Richard Dawkins’s point of view. That’s why his points of view on ID and creation appear in the lyrics. I don’t think it’s a complicated as Dave is making it.

  5. But not on Uncommon Descent where everyone thought it was dissing scientists.

    Dave, it’s not dissing scientists. It’s dissing Darwinian academic zealots.

  6. Perhaps the lyrics aren’t quite right?

    You see, this battle’s been ragin’ since Zeus was on the bottle,

    [agreed, an ancient debate]

    ‘tween Science like Democritus and Faith like Aristotle‘s,?

    [but, Democritus and Aristotle were both materialists, no?, what is the faith reference to Aristotle and why the placement of that question mark, unless perhaps it is an allusion to Aristle's faith in his "science"]

    who said the mover was unmovin’ like some magic trick,

    [this perhaps should be:
    who said the mover
    wasn't? the point being, this is a rhetorical question meaning 'oh yeah?, well who sez the mover [God] was not actually moving in magical ways’]

    but that’s no good logic, my posse is far too quick for this religious schtick.

    [but we "brights" are too intelligent to have faith in God, we just have faith in "science". Note the allusion to 'religious schtick' casts the preceeding in a negative light relative to Dick's Posse, i.e. Dick's Posse can't accept, de facto, a mover that moves magically]

    the stanza seems to impune the “brights” inability to accept “magic” if it’s from God, but “magic” from (Darwinian) science is acceptable.

    (consumes large grain of salt)

  7. (lets try that post again)

    Perhaps the lyrics aren’t quite right?

    You see, this battle’s been ragin’ since Zeus was on the bottle,

    [agreed, an ancient debate]

    ‘tween Science like Democritus and Faith like Aristotle‘s,?

    [but, Democritus and Aristotle were both materialists, no?, what is the faith reference to Aristotle and why the placement of that question mark, unless perhaps it is an allusion to Aristle's faith in his "science"]

    who said the mover was unmovin’ like some magic trick,

    [this perhaps should be:
    who said the mover wasn't movin’, like some magic trick? the point being, this is a rhetorical question meaning 'oh yeah?, well who sez the mover [God] was not actually moving in magical ways’]

    but that’s no good logic, my posse is far too quick for this religious schtick.

    [but we "brights" are too intelligent to have faith in God, we just have faith in "science". Note the allusion to 'religious schtick' casts the preceeding in a negative light relative to Dick's Posse, i.e. Dick's Posse can't accept, de facto, a mover that moves magically]

    the stanza seems to impune the “brights” inability to accept “magic” if it’s from God, but “magic” from (Darwinian) science is acceptable.

    (consumes large grain of salt)

  8. Mark Norris made mention to me that:

    “My main read on this is just that in general it supports the scientific method.”

    I find that interesting because that seems to indicate that their side is saying that the scientific method is out to eliminate that “religious shtick” by silencing guys like that “watchdog *wingnut* Paley”.

    It seems as if they agree that scientists are “fram[ing] the discourse that faith and science are split in schismatic divorce”.

    This isn’t a “scientific” agenda but rather an atheistic one. Do they even see a difference between the two? I’m not sure they do, and that’s what’s so interesting about the conversations going on from their perspective.

    It appears they are quite vocally equating science with atheism. I thought that is what Genie et. al. were trying to con the public into thinking was an incorrect view of their position.

    This video has certainly brought out some interesting acknowledgements from the “scientific community”. That’s for sure.

    Just bear in mind that science owes it’s existence to God.

  9. Davescot, surely you’re not saying that people who earn more $$$ are smarter than those who don’t?

  10. Brilliant! Best thing about the science bloggers is their willingness–nay, happiness–to embrace the gangsta image and la machine. Life imitates art.

    As to the question of whether Aristote was a materialist: No, and he expended a great deal of energy trying to make this clear.

  11. DaveScot,

    “scientists or creationists.”
    I am surprised that these groups dichotomized in your post. Darwinists might make that distinction, simply by their doctrine although a spurious one.

  12. Charles, I believe the rap is a reference to Aristotle’s “unmoved mover.” Same idea as the “prime mover” or “uncaused cause” which Dawkins and the Darwinbots seem to have such difficulty understanding. (I.e., it doesn’t mean that the deity doesn’t do anything; it means that God is the origin and source of everything temporal.)

  13. I just read the comments about it at Pharngula. Mind boggling.

    They have such a bizarre view of people who adhere to religious belief or “fundies” that many of them think we wouldn’t understand or enjoy the clip because of the “rap” music, “bleeps”, etc.

    Personally, I think it’s the most hilarious thing I’ve seen on youtube. It’s great. My kids fell to pieces laughing over it as well.

    Maybe we’re not “fundie” enough…

  14. The video articulates and expresses so precisely what the ScienceBloggers feel deep down, thus it is a voice for their inner most thoughts.

    Perhaps they don’t realize that their inner most thoughts will not endear them to the rest of the world, nor the people they wish to reach out to…..or maybe, like PZ and Dawkins, they just don’t care anymore…

    The critics are just being their ole lovable selves…..

    If the ID folks were behind it, then they are just playing the critics like a fiddle.

    Reminds me of how the FBI once caught a serial wife killer by simply offering to promote his story if he came clean. The Serial killer was so enthralled with opportunity at “fame” he willingly went to jail so that his story could be told…..[sorry I don't have the name of the guy off hand]

    The FBI had top notch personality profilers working on the case, and they realized they had a shot by playing to the inflated ego of the serial killer.

    Perhaps the video expresses something the critics have been longing to say for a long time…if the ID side was behind it, then like the FBI, the ID side is using the critics inflated egoes against them…

  15. Okay, I’m just dying to know who put this thing together…

  16. mathstudent

    I was comparing two different points of view. From the point of view of a successful entrepreneur being labeled less smart than a scientist is laughable. The entrepreneur is using an equally valid but different metric to measure “smart”. The statement “I’m smarter than you because I have a PhD” is no more or less valid than “I’m smarter than you because I make more money”.

  17. Ah yes, here it is, the case of Robert Spangler.

    http://www.crimezzz.net/serial.....robert.php

    It shows that unsavory individuals with inflated egoes can be played like a fiddle toward their own demise if you know how to push their buttons.

    If the video was by ID proponents, then it tells me we’ve got some top notch personality profilers on our side. :-)

  18. scordova: I can just see response now “Salvador Cordova compares ScienceBloggers to serial killers”

  19. Lutepisc:

    I believe the rap is a reference to Aristotle’s “unmoved mover.” Same idea as the “prime mover” or “uncaused cause” which Dawkins and the Darwinbots seem to have such difficulty understanding.

    I reckon so. I’ve decided to postpone my rap debut.

  20. toc

    The dichotomy between creationists and scientists was taken from the video and the comments on the science blogs not my personal beliefs. As far as I’m concerned the two are not mutually exclusive but people like Myers and Dawkins believe they are. I focus on results rather than methods or ideologies. If one scientist believes he is studying the rational work of a rational God and another beleives he is studying the random interaction of law and chance I don’t really care about the difference in perspective. Both demonstrably yield fruit.

    That said it does seem to me that a belief that a rational God created a rational, ordered universe that may be understood by intelligent beings created in the image of God is a more sound basis for the philosophy of science. It presumes a cause for rationality and order in the universe. It also presumes that we are capable of understanding the rationality and order in the universe. These build confidence that rational explanations for everything we see exist and can be discovered. What inspires the same confidence in people who think the universe is a big accident? Accidents don’t require rhyme and reason behind them.

  21. Very well said, Dave.

  22. There is a line in the video that I think is very revealing. The line about scientists “standing on the shoulders of midgets” inverts the traditional motto “standing on the shoulders of giants” and in doing so lambasts the Darwinists’ lack of respect for the great thinkers of the past who made modern science possible. Quite a large number of these thinkers believed in the existence of a designer.

    The arrogant Darwinist, believing that he is the brilliant intellectual giant, is dismissive of an intellectual tradition far richer and more profound than he understands. The basis for the Darwinist’s arrogance? He’s got a “science degree.” Priceless.

  23. Another way of stating it is that we all desire to be right and say “I told you so”. Everytime complexity and design in life is discovered, further eroding the possibilithy that undirected material processes account for it all, Materialists let out a silent groan, and then must muster ever greater creativity in formulating some materialistice explanation that stretches the boundary of plausibility.

    Meanwhile, the IDer takes comfort and encouragement from the discovery, while building motivation to get out there and discover yet more design.

    One balloon going up, the other sinking.

  24. Dave:

    Perhaps I’m a bit sensitive. I’m currently earning a PhD in math and had to endure the lectures from uncles and other family members that I was wasting my time going into academics. Surely, they said, if I was really good at math I would go into industry, become and actuary, or work at the NSA.

    Sorry if I misunderstood you.

  25. [...] Science Bloggers: Hook, line, and sinker I’ve spent several hours reading all the reactions to the Age of the Machine video (see my previous post) and checking out where it’s been posted. Except for Uncommon Descent it’s all on Science Blogger websites and the reaction is fascinating. Almost without exception it’s b… [...]

  26. I think Dave is right on in his analysis. There is one other thing about it that I thought of after watching it.

    That is, the ORIGIN of the video is unknown. That sets the viewers and the discussion on where this video originated, and how it orginated. Being logical thinking human beings, we know that videos with this level of complexity do not arise from random interaction of video data on Youtube. They must be designed. How do we know that? I suppose that is a “Just So” argument and cannot be proven scientifically.

    This is also suggested in the video, when Dawkins notes that the Machine orginated long before his time with no explanation for how it orginated. How did the Machine come into existance?? Of course it’s from 4 billion years of random interaction of metalic elements!!

    This is cleverly done, and the fact that the origin is unknown makes it likely to me that the authors wanted there to be speculation about its origin.

  27. Thank you, DaveScot, for your clarification.

    I recently read a review of Dawkins’ THE BLIND WATCHMAKER by Dallas Willard, of USC. He has an interesting way of respectfully evaluating the arguments Dawkins posits.

    Perhaps UD readers and participants might find his comments fitting, particularly with matters discussed in this thread.

    The paper can be downloaded ( Line 42 ) at this URL:

    http://www.dwillard.org/articles/phillist.asp

  28. I go to USC. Maybe I could talk him : )

  29. Except for Uncommon Descent it’s all on Science Blogger websites…

    Well, you may forgotten about Comment 22, which pointed you to my take on the song (that it was ripping on atheist scientists).

    The appreciation of the song by atheist-scientists and their toadies reminds me of that Carly Simon lyric you’re so vain, you probably think this song is about you.

    Either that, or those who claim the song vindicates the status quo in evolutionary science are just declaring support in spite of reality.

  30. “There is a line in the video that I think is very revealing. The line about scientists “standing on the shoulders of midgets” inverts the traditional motto “standing on the shoulders of giants” and in doing so lambasts the Darwinists’ lack of respect for the great thinkers of the past who made modern science possible. Quite a large number of these thinkers believed in the existence of a designer.”

    That line is referencing Sam Harris’ quote, “we appear to have been standing on the shoulders of dwarfs.”

  31. In thinking about the video, I am convinced that the entire video is an insulting caricature of materialist scientists that went right over a lot of their heads.

    Even lyrics that at first blush appear to support the PT-mafia point of view are upon consideration subtle but obvious jabs.

  32. Whoever did it, it’s brilliant work. That much everyone agrees!

  33. More fodder for the argument:
    “cos science is the only way to know yall”

    This statement is wrong, but seems to me an accurate characterization of the view held by these guys. A simplistic view of epistemology that is clearly self-refuting.

  34. William Wallace

    You’re swaying me towards your interpretation. A large fraction of the commenters at Pharyngula believe that the caricature of Dawkins et al is essentially an accurate representation AND they furthermore believe it is flattering. Others believe it is accurate but unflattering. Yet others believe it is an unflattering parody. The collective cognitive dissonance going on over there is, if nothing else, quite amusing.

    P.S. Please excuse me missing your blog in the roundup of websites promoting the video.

  35. There’s a wealth of comments on Richard Dawkins’ website. Dick to the Dawk hisself is commenting frequently. He doesn’t find it amusing. At least not in his first several responses but I’m only at the second fifty comments with hundreds yet to go.

    http://richarddawkins.net/arti.....andomSlice

    Interesting comment:

    130. Comment #151845 by the great teapot on March 29, 2008 at 2:49 pm

    This must be a work of genius.
    It is the first time in a year that Richard has seen fit to post more than one comment.
    Not since the creepy Iain Banksesque(thanks wiki) post modernist called September has Richard posted so many comments.
    Hats off to our enigmatic rappers.

  36. If this production isn’t genius, it is close to it. Consider the “machine” metaphor and its power to describe the phenomenon of immediate expulsion; consider its relationship to the “ministry of scientific propaganda;” consider its reappearance as it approaches from a distance and finally towers over all the observers. Now reflect on the significance of dancing in front of the machine (worshipful submission to naturalism) and the lyrics (contempt for anyone who disagrees). Most important, think about how Darwin and his fellow worshipers are being ridiculed for their narcissistic fantasies about being smarter than the rest of us. That Darwinists could believe this video to be anything other than an unqualified insult to them is a tribute to their proclivity to believe only what they want to believe about all things.

  37. That Darwinists could believe this video to be anything other than an unqualified insult to them is a tribute to their proclivity to believe only what they want to believe about all things.

    There does seem to be a bit of confirmation bias going on there, StephenB. Same sort of attitude that gets brought to the petri dish, microscope and test tube, no doubt!

  38. tribune:
    “Dave, it’s not dissing scientists. It’s dissing Darwinian academic zealots”

    The Dawinian neocon delusion has been effective in muddying the waters.

  39. Darwisciples’ praise of this video is just a way to diffuse its impact.

    Sort of like when someone makes a demeaning joke about you in front of a crowd and you go ahead and laugh so not to seem hurt by it.

  40. jpcollado

    A rather broad spectrum of academic disciplines are complicit in the expulsions and there’s wide representation among the expelled too. Gonzalez is an astronomy professor for pete’s sake. Pretty far removed from evolutionary biology. A damn fine astronomer too whose work in detection of planets in other solar systems is splattered all over NASA, the cover of SciAm, dozens of highly cited papers in the peer reviewed rags. His sole “crime” was to doubt that the universe is a big accident and say why in a book that was made into a movie that’s more popular among religious types because it might give them hope that the universe isn’t a big accident and we’re here for a reason. A wide range of faculty were found conspiring in email behind his back to publically denounce him for his friendliness with ID and Discovery. It was found to be a factor used in his tenure decision even after the university denied it. You know how it with those pesky email trails at public universities and the open records act and all that.

  41. Incredibly fascinating little video. Here’s my view on it.

    a. This took a lot of work – it was not done overnight, nor in the last week in response to the publicity generated by PZ getting Expelled. It has been in the works for a real long time.

    Take the chorus line: Dic to the Doc(or Dawk) to the PhD. What is happening here?

    I think it is saying: Dick (reference to Dawkins, but also to the pelvic revolt that motivates atheists, in line with the body movements on the video) to the Dawk (which is apparently a sycophantic name Dawkins’ followers refer to him by – but also could be spelled DORK, another play on his name) to the Ph.D (ie. DOC).

    The phrase is evolving: Dick, Dork, Doc. In other words, atheistic evolution proceeds along a line from sexual amorality to an argument from authority(I have a Ph. D and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid), in line with the rest of the chorus.

    If I’m reading that chorus line right, there has been a real lot of thought put into an amazingly well-done put-down. That was not thrown together in a moment.

    b. However, the video has very clear parallels with the Expelled movie – persecution of scientists who dispute darwinism, deliberate use of the word EXPELLED, etc, and as even some of the commenters on Pharyngula and Richard Dawkins site have come to realise, it is very anti-Dawkins.

    Dawkins’ own comments on the thread on his website are amazingly irritated! He has every right to be huffy/perplexed about it, too – it is calling him (and the other atheists) a lot of names: authoritarian, smug, vicious, motivated by money and sex, a gangster, foul-mouthed, thinks himself more important in the history of Darwinism than Darwin himself, etc. etc.

    In short, this is very much of a piece with EXPELLED.

    c. However, again, it has a historical/philosophical depth that goes a long way beyond what I expect EXPELLED will be able to deal with – there are references not only to Greek thought, but also to a good few iconic moments in the creation/design/evolution debate. This was not put together by some back-yard rapper – there was serious input from philosophers of science, people steeped in the history of darwin’s life, Richard Dawkins’ self-adulation and the whole creation/evolution conflict.

    d. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reference anywhere to Intelligent Design. Although there are slap-down references to creationism (typical of the way atheists talk), there is no mention of ID. If this was put together by anyone remotely sympathetic to an evolutionary point of view, the first point they would make would be to equate ID with creationism – but they haven’t. The potential for some rhyme based on ID (Ph.D?) would have been soooo easy – why is there none?

    e. There has been ZERO comment on this video from the people within the ID movement who have the philosophical background to be very, very interested in working out where this thing came from IF they had NOT seen it before it appeared on Youtube(E.g. Dembski, Disco people). Its not been shown on Evolution News or Discovery’s site, and no comments yet from Dembski here.

    That’s very strange – RD and PZ are blogging away furiously about it, but none of the ID big-hitters even think its worth a giggle? There’s something going on …

    Conclusions: This has EXPELLED written all over it. It has had serious contributions from senior ID thinkers, as well as some professional rappers.

    I think it is part of the Expelled marketing campaign. The atheist bloggers who see it as anti-evolution are confused at this point: what is the point, they say? They forget that before RD and PZ gatecrashed the pre-screening, Expelled was worried about getting its message out to the wider viewing public. This was part of the marketing plan – and what a brilliant little virus it is!

    I think the point is to eventually announce the DESIGNER of this video as associated with the EXPELLED movie, with the result that the movie gets even more exposure.

    However, in my opinion, this video is so good that it will outlive even the EXPELLED video.

  42. Maybe there is even a little ‘trademark’ built into the video somewhere so that Expelled people can prove that it came from them?

    Or maybe it would be more appropriate from the Designer not to write his name on it, with the result that we are left with inferences alone?

  43. Andrew

    Maybe there is even a little ‘trademark’ built into the video somewhere so that Expelled people can prove that it came from them?

    In the immortal words of Archie Bunker: My sediments exactly.

    I’d bet the smoking gun is that the faces on the actors are directly lifted from Expelled film footage. Once the film is out it’ll be easy enough to point to a specific frame where a face appears, compare it pixel by pixel to determine there’s an exact match, and that will be proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

  44. Andrew

    I presented the video to hundreds of scientists sympathetic to ID and asked for comments on it. The scientists include just about every big name in ID out there as well as the entire staff of the discovery institute. That was 24 hours ago. Normally this group is rather verbose and I interact with them daily, almost hourly, but as of right now there hasn’t been a peep out of any of them in response to me. I’m suspicious. It’s like they all know something they aren’t telling me. Maybe I just haven’t waited long enough for a response but I’m beginning to doubt that. I love Shakespeare so I’ll close with a quote from him: “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”.

  45. DaveScot @ 40:
    “Gonzalez is an astronomy professor for pete’s sake. Pretty far removed from evolutionary biology. A damn fine astronomer too whose work in detection of planets in other solar systems is splattered all over NASA, the cover of SciAm, dozens of highly cited papers in the peer reviewed rags.”

    You know what Dave, I think Gonzalez should sue based on ethnic/racial discrimination just to see what excuse the school will some up with this time. It has all the appearance of it given Gonzalez’s fine workmanship, scholarly contribution and achievements. If ID is not the culprit, then maybe just being a Cuban-Amrican has something to do with after all. Who knows.

  46. There are a lot of similarities between this video and some of the JibJab videos.

    The opening mouths are very JibJabby.

    The two scientists (or at least their moustaches) in the opening scene of the video look (a little) like the two characters in the JibJab logo.

    Eugenie’s belly-wiggling is similar to one of JibJab’s video’s (see the Hula one).

    Lastly, the Expelled site have a JibJab video on the Playground – featuring all the main characters of the machine video.

    Whether they have collaborated with an outside rapper, I don’t know. But it sure looks like their design motifs all over this.

  47. Looks like we might need some help from a professional rapper and expert in multimedia and graphics.

    Atom, are you out there?

  48. “Professional rapper” always sounds funny to me. It’s more like an oxymoron. Professional rap lyricist or profession rap agent- Either that or somebody from the urban dictionary might come in handy.

  49. Whatever you want to call him, Atom is extremely talented in both musical structure and lyrics — in addition to being well-spoken and well informed about all issues pertaining to ID.

    I still would like to get his take on this video…

  50. Graceout, thanks for the kind words. I’m here.

    And I’m as clueless as everyone else about the origin of the video. I have my hunches but would rather let everyone guess until the truth is revealed. And I have a strong feeling it will be soon enough.

    That being said, no matter who produced it, it is brilliant. The Pimp Dennett had me laughing for days. And the song gets stuck in your head…I find myself all day saying “Dick to the Dawk to the PhD…I’m smarter than you I have a science degree…”

  51. Built-in ambiguity is a hoary fiction writer’s trick. The PURPOSE of the entire exercise is to get your audience parsing “what do they really mean?”

    AND WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

  52. There you are, Atom!!!!

    I agree. Let’s just wait it out and see. (And yes, I went to sleep last night with the entire tune going through my head.)

    Just a few things I noticed/enjoyed:

    I like the ‘Star Trek’ communicator sound when Little Tool calls Big Gadget. (Also the names themselves.)

    The word ‘too’ in the hillarious line “If I was dyslexic I’d even hate dog, too.” Dawkins would never say he hates God. It this were really Dawkin, he would say “If I was dyslexic I wouldn’t believe in dog, too.” (OK, so that ruins the rhythm, sue me.)

    I’m reminded of the 1 minute ‘Ask Mr. Science’ comedy clips that PBS radio put on the air in the late 80s. A “writer” would ask a question, and then Mr. Science would give a wordy, bogus answer. (i.e. Well Jimmy, we all know that pidgeons are really evolved sewer rats with wings.”) The closing credits would then claim Mr. Science was reliable because “He has a Master’s degree—In Science!”

  53. I think Dave Scot’s analysis of this is exactly right. As usual he’s weighed the evidence, tested the different hypotheses and distilled the most likely answer.

  54. To settle the matter, it appears the producers have come out an vindicated DaveScot’s analysis….

    See:
    Who made “Beware of the Believers

    I would not have been so bold the PZ/PT-mafia would have been so easily duped. They were being made fun of and they relished it.

    They willingly submit themselves to ID marketing tactics. Amazing! Amazing!

    By the way, I nominate PZ for his academy award winning performance in Expelled.

  55. Nice. Good call DaveScot.

  56. [...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt [...]

Leave a Reply