Home » Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Media » Watch this spoof of the Darwinists at YouTube soon

Watch this spoof of the Darwinists at YouTube soon

Before it’s deleted: A riff on the publicly funded, court-enforced Darwin lobby. Stars long-ago scientist Richard Dawkins and Darwin’s broomstick Eugenie Scott*:

Lines like

“He’s smarter than you, he’s got a science degree!” 

and

“You don’t know me, you don’t know Dick!”

Stuff that People Who Count complain about tends to disappear so, if interested, watch now …

* Mistakenly identified earlier as pseudo-ID expert Barbara Forrest.

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

9 Responses to Watch this spoof of the Darwinists at YouTube soon

  1. Of related interest:

    William Lane Craig Leaves a Chair Open for Richard Dawkins (Mirror: Birdieupon) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFvgiH_MMdk

  2. YES, please go watch this video. Many of us “Darwinists” absolutely loved it. We commend the original artist for his talent and sense of humor.

    ps – the video is hosted on a number of YouTube accounts and has been around for a few years now.

  3. That was Eugenie Scott in the video, not Barbara Forrest.

  4. I second BA77′s admonition. Please check out his link:

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

    William Lane Craig is a first-rate intellect and scholar. Dawkins is a third-rate (or lower) intellect who basically writes and pontificates with assistance from his 19th-century teleprompter.

    Dawkins is not a scientist; he’s a pseudoscience hack.

    Dawkins knows that Craig would challenge him to provide evidence and arguments in support of the probabilistic resources required for the Darwinian mechanism (which didn’t exist before dirt miraculously turned into the first living, self-replicating cell) to produce all living systems which came after, including all of life’s monstrously complex, sophisticated, functionally integrated information-processing systems.

    When confronted with these challenges Dawkins would have no recourse but to respond with dog-breeding examples and impassioned exclamations about how “God wouldn’t have done it that way.”

    Dog breeding and “God wouldn’t have done it that way” pretty much summarizes Dawkins’ “scientific” apologetic concerning Darwinism.

    No wonder Dick is afraid to debate WLC. I would be too.

  5. GilDodgen:
    “William Lane Craig is a first-rate intellect and scholar.”

    In which field?

  6. GilDodgen,

    are you sure you meant “admonition”?

    ad·mo·ni·tion
    1. An act or action of admonishing; authoritative counsel or warning
    – the old judge’s admonition to the jury on this point was particularly weighty

  7. 7
    CannuckianYankee

    Hip-hop Dickie-dock. Hilarious. I picked up this line:

    “If I were dyslexic I’d hate dogs too.”

  8. 8
    CannuckianYankee

    I think what happens in October of this year may be a fundamentally important event if Dawkins decides to fill that chair. It will finally bring together the two most predominant figures arguing the cases for theism and atheism respectively.

    And all kidding aside, it would be a tremendously serious debate, in which theism would be presented in logical terms as WLC does so well and, well, I think you can pretty much guess how the other side will be presented.

  9. I must admit, I’ve never understood the draw of these “debates”. They never seem to go anywhere. Here’s a sample:

    WLC: Theism!

    RD: Atheism!

    WLC: Presuppositional Apologetics!

    RD: Science!

    WLC: Atheism is nothing but purposelessness and pointlessness!

    RD: So what? Theism has no utility.

    WLC: Theism!

    RD: Atheism! And science!

    Yawn…

    It’s like watching a boat pass under a bridge while watching a car drive over the bridge and calling that a debate.

    What’s the point?

    To each his or her own I suppose, but I don’t get it.

Leave a Reply