The Faithful Gather to Worship Saint Charles
| September 5, 2008 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Poe's Law |
24 Responses to The Faithful Gather to Worship Saint Charles
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
benefits of prozac and how to buy prozac you can use a credit card prozacs advantages and how to order buy prozac online and read here buy lexapro online without a prescription is no longer a problem buy lasix buy citalopram Lexapro answer your qestions
That doesn’t seem like a news site. More like satire.
Hey Barry, this should be filed under “humor” or some of us, who are unfamilliar with The Onion, may get the idea that these people are for real.
idnet
Are you sure that’s satire?
I’m creating a new category “Poe’s Law” for this one.
Another gem at “The Onion” is “Intelligent Falling Theory” so we can see they are fair and can make fun of everyone. http://www.theonion.com/conten.....ecial=2005
Scrappleface has always been my favorite. Check these out.
Some fodder for a future blog entry (feel free to delete this off-topic comment). This is unbelievable. Who would have thought biologists had an IQ of 121.5? I would have guessed 102.5.
IQ in different fields
The results are in:
130.0 Physics
129.0 Mathematics
128.5 Computer Science
128.0 Economics
127.5 Chemical engineering
127.0 Material science
126.0 Electrical engineering
125.5 Mechanical engineering
125.0 Philosophy
124.0 Chemistry
123.0 Earth sciences
122.0 Industrial engineering
122.0 Civil engineering
121.5 Biology
120.1 English/literature
120.0 Religion/theology
119.8 Political science
119.7 History
118.0 Art history
117.7 Anthropology/archeology
116.5 Architecture
116.0 Business
115.0 Sociology
114.0 Psychology
114.0 Medicine
112.0 Communication
109.0 Education
106.0 Public administration
And now, for on topic: The onion is good for a chuckle!
Isn’t that Chewie?
To me, the article is too close to the truth to be satire.
As for the Darwinists in the article, their behavior is too realistic to be satire. We have the “I love Darwin” stuff (even a doggie shirt), the “Friend of Darwin” certificates handed out at a reunion of the Dover plaintiffs team, the ridiculous Darwin Day merrymaking, the Clergy Letter, the Darwin Sunday sermons, the Darwin-Lincoln crap, the evolution-is-central-to-biology crap, etc.. Then there is the logo of http://www.ThankGodForEvolution.com
On the fundy side, there is an article titled “Evolutionists should not be allowed to roam free in the land” in the newsletter of the Creation Science Association For Mid-America. The article said,
The banner of the CSAFMA says,
Also, after the pro-ID members of the Dover school board were voted out, televangelist Pat Robertson said,
Also, Robertson said in a later statement,
– from
http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/local/ci_3206058
Satire, my eye!
Well, at least they should have saved it for April Fools’ Day.
It’s either him, or Davy Jones from the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.
Great, even brilliant satire at Scrappleface. Thanks for the reference, DaveScot. I especially liked New Lack of Evidence Boosts Certainty of Darwinism, by Scott Ott, at http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2688 :
“……Far from casting doubt on Darwin’s theory, experts say that the lack of evidence and contradictory discoveries have helped to build “a consensus of certainty in the field.”
“Finding little physical evidence to substantiate the theory only means there must still be a great deal of supportive evidence out there to be found,” said an unnamed editor of the journal Nature, which plans to publish a paper on the African skulls this week. “The more we realize how little we know, the more certain we are that we’re right. As I once read in a scholarly paper somewhere, ‘faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen’.” “
My IQ was tested twice in my life,- 123 in 3rd grade and 133 in 11th grade.
This showed me that IQ can be improved despite what the experts say.
Devotees, it is a reward for your implicit, unquestioning faith that the Author of the Best Idea Anyone Ever Had, the Most Important Book in the Library of Our Species has appeared unto you.
But … yet another wonder!: He has appeared
again – in a tree! Verily the Tree of Life.
Curiously, just today I was dealing with a Christian who is a genuinely convinced “theistic evolutionist”.
He actually believes it all …. wow … the Darwinian Fairy Tales
The sense of the ridiculous is, in some places, in desperately short supply.
Now you’ve made me curious as to what’s in the other species’ libraries.
In other Onion science news, primates have yet to evolve carapaces even in the presence of extreme selection pressures.
Always such violent contributions from the AngryOldFatMan.
I wonder if it is a cry for help. :/
That is supposed to be a worried face.
This is what our tax dollars go to. Can you image the idiot robots who actually carried out these experiments?
Frost122585,
What experts?
Off topic: Anyone notice this origin of life computer program? :
http://www.physorg.com/news139574725.html
Hmmm, now what do we expect the base assumptions programmed into this software will be?
Since we are in the chuckling mode, i liked this one.
http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/6466/
PannenbergOmega wrote:
Yes. Natural selection is violent. So is humor (punchlines, gags, killing, dying, bombing, a riot, a scream, cracking up, busting a gut, in stitches, knee-slapping, side-splitting, rolling around on the floor, etc.).
Someone as sensitive as yourself should stay away from both of these things.
Yes. Send me money.
Sadly, this article does display more truth than satire, as Farfarman states. However, is this really the kind of truth that we want to be reading about, laughing about?
Whether you support Intelligent Design or Darwinism, this kind of article simply gets in the way of the real discussion and issues at hand. Any proponent of either viewpoint using an article with this kind of sarcastic coverage pollutes the overall debate with demagoguery so offensive it could lead both sides into a brainless imitation of an episode of “Yo Mama”.
In fact, we should take the example of The Onion, by being very clear about the type of information we share and promote. Several articles published by this source have been attacked by groups worried about the validity of their claims. In fact, columnist Ellen Makkai attempted to use one Onion article against the Harry Potter series, by offering up “evidence” from an article that the books were provoking kids to practice witchcraft. http://www.wnd.com/news/articl.....E_ID=25446.
I believe one of the biggest problems for the debate is currently the prominence and importance the media and others have given to the opinions and practices of radical minorities on both fronts. However, I’d guess that most educated Darwinists would find the extremists on their side to be simply fueling the fire behind the oppositions’ arguments. I know I do not want any of my fellow ID advocates to be affected by viewing the actions of radical design parties and thus abandoning intelligent debate.
I found the following analogy from Michael Ruse, an authority on the history and philosophy of science at Florida State University, very intriguing. He relates the dynamics of the debate to the civil rights movement, stating, “If we can only get over this hangup about the sciences and evolution, 20, 40, 50 years from now, people are going to be looking back and saying, ‘Am I ever glad we don’t have to fight that anymore.” http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02.....mps_.shtml. While Darwinists might find fault with this analogy
, it cannot be denied that this is a crucial debate and some participants will abandon all decorum and honest fact to discredit the other side. The debate is complicated enough without clouding the scene with emotional attacks leading to unfounded prejudices against the opponents. Let’s return to a debate of the science and fact behind both theories as well as an evalution of the influence our current culture and society has on the issues. While the silliness in this article is cute, let’s not give these radical extremists of either side the satisfaction of turning away from a productive debate.
azapril wrote:
No, we should be serious about science at all times.
That way science can be more like religion in that it’s extremely impolite and insensitive to joke about it and practically everybody will avoid doing so.