The Age of The Machine

| 81 Comments | 4 TrackBacks

Make it viral.

4 TrackBacks

The age of the machine from A Blog Around The Clock on March 28, 2008 9:11 PM

Via... Read More

Really, the guy is simply everywhere, getting expelled from movies, getting expelled from conference calls, and now with this video I expect he will be expelled from the Grammy Awards... Read More

Art reflects truth from Coincidence Theories on March 29, 2008 3:52 PM

My guess this is in face Eminem ripping on the PT-mafia, thought they are too stupid to realize it. Opening credits: Ministry of Science Propaganda. BEWARE THE BELIEVERS THEY ARE AMONG US! Reporting Idiocy isn’t really squealing. Richard Dawkins... Read More

Must make this viral.Panda's Thumb said so.Viralify it. Send it out as spam if you have to.... Read More

81 Comments

Most Excellent! LOL!

Awesome.

Oh. My.

The phrase “over the top” comes to mind.

But I will admit to laughing at the line “If I was dyslexic I’d even hate dog too.”

GREAT DARWIN’S GALAPAGOS!

I want to know who made it, where their website is, and where I can email them, I want a higher-quality version of the audio track! I want to use it on my show.

That was pretty good, but I can’t really figure out which side came up with it.

I think I’ve watched it lie 15 times now. PZ’s octo-hat and Hitchens’ “I heart booze” headband absolutely destroyed me.

lie = like

Laughing too hard to type well

Caution, caution. My immediate reaction after watching this was to excoriate myself for my unhealthy and morbid curiosity about how low the human race could go.

After all, it was for that reason that I accessed Phred Phelps’ web hate-o-rama, and was nauseous for days afterwards. I even looked at VenomfangX’s little sachets of pufftwaddle, which one can still find on the U-tube despite that charmless little toad being banned. I thought it’d be a larff. It was at first, but it was only depressing in the long run to find that someone - anyone - could be so disconnected as to have no inkling whatsoever of his own affect, let alone of what constitutes actual, you know, reality.

But this voidio goes so far into the woods that it meets itself coming out. On one level, I can get all literarty and remind myself that even the most scabrous of satire and caricature must have, apart from some tincture of wit, some reference to reality. This doesn’t have either - unless!

Unless, that is, it’s actually ironic. If it were, the wit is found in the irony, and the connect to reality is found in the paranoid delusions and sleazy hypocrisy of creationism, which is what it is actually satirising. Aargh! I can’t decide. Put me out of my misery, someone.

Well I know exactly where I’ve seen this kind of thing before: Southpark. The same skewering of both sides. The same in your face exaggerated attitude. The same obscure references to history. The same lewd attitude. The same razor sharp comic timing. The same simplified 2D animation style. The deft use of symbolism. The caricatures. The use of music.

If it isn’t one of the Southpark guys, its someone who grew up watching them..

This clip ROCKS (apologies to geologists).

It exposes “Big Science” like no other clip ever has!!

One thing - PZ should wear more bling now, eh?

The Expelled Frauds™ could learn some filmmaking tips from this guy.

I agree its a little over the top, but the parody elements are, like South Park, just irreverent.…there is none of the mind-numbingly stupid message content of the kind we get always from creationists – the actual content is legitimately pro-science. It is hard to believe a creationist would create a parody of the pro-science side in this manner.

If it is from the other side, they should elevate its creator to grand creationist poohbah. He’s the only funny guy they’ve got. That is a riot.

Someone posted the lyrics over at Pharyngula

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/[…]you_know.php

comment # 51

Holy…! I’m leaning towards the view that this is a pro-ID video, but damn, is it good. Thank dog almost none of the creationists are this witty or talented, or they might be twenty times better at pulling the wool over the lay public’s eyes than they are now (and often they’re pretty good at it already).

The beginning has the subtitle “Reporting idiocy isn’t really squealing” so it is NOT a pro-ID work.

Check the other links: all to Dawkins or similar vids.

w00t! Genie is hawt! :)

I think it’s pro-ID also. We should probably just ignore it and let it die.

It doesn’t seem pro-ID. Who are these guys? Where are they? Anyone who comes up with something as informed as this is tracking the pulse of the situation. Scientists probably never thought they would be on South Park! Perhaps facts have to be marketed like any other product.…+ how did anyone come up with this in such a timely manner i.e. fast? P.S. look at all the dancers!

I have to admit that watching Darwin get down and boogie has a certain something. Maybe he was a k001 dood after all. Just a thought…

I do like the HAL eye of the machine, nice touch. I believe Socrates was mis-identified from Raphael’s School of Athens painting.

Very good. There’s lots of stuff on Youtube now which realy is excellent from the likes of Thunderfoot, Cdk007, potholer 54 and of course Don Exodus.

However, if the purpose of this little clip was to promote science then think again. This is seriously underestimating the IDErs/YECs.

In Belfast next month we have a major 2 day YEC conference that will attract thousands. The speakers are not some obscure unqualified missionaries but four well qualified scientists. Ham is an ex-science teacher. Monty White has a PhD in chemistry. David Menton is an ex-assistant professor of anatomy from a prestigious university in the US, and Stewart Burgess an engineering professor from a main university in England. A highly qualified group of scientists, wouldn’t you agree ? None believe in millions/billions of years. All accept the origins of life as told in the book of Genesis. Why should the ordinary Belfast Christian citizen believe those atheistic “eviloutionists” or Christian leaders who have compromised over “millions of years” ? But then, I’m sure the folks on the Pandas Thumb are already aware of this type of scenario. :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGF2AxlQsYE

Pete, I think the purpose of this little clip was to be funny.

I think it is pro-ID, or at the very least anti-“new atheist”, but who cares. Unlike all the other so-called parodies we have seen so far from the other side, this one is well done, original and funny. They didn’t use fart noises, so we know at least that Dembski was not involved.

Some people have no sense of satire, at all. The whole thing is satire and I don’t think that it is anti-anything on our side.

- It starts off with “Ministry of Scientific Propaganda” - a nonexistent body, of course - satirizing the creationist complaints about “Big Science”, etc.

- At the bottom of that opening screen it says “Reporting idiocy isn’t really squealing”.

- All of the stuff about scientists being chucked out of labs by a robot specifically built for the purpose is again mockery of creationist claims.

- The things that Dawkins says is a parody of how people tend to see him, despite the fact that he rarely makes such claims.

- The lyrics are almost entirely pro-science.

- They have even gone to the trouble of putting a picture of a squid on PZ’s hat!

The lyrics point pro-science but who cares. It’s hilarious.

At 2:40 the street scene appears to be downtown Jackson Miss. Capitol Street looking up toward State Street. This makes sense as a location for the production of such a piece since this is the Baptist heartland. Blue City (Jxn) response to a Red State (MS) religious menace?

Or just me searching for deeper meaning in shallow water?

Enjoy.

Rev. BigDumbChimp:

I think I’ve watched it like 15 times now. PZ’s octo-hat and Hitchens’ “I heart booze” headband absolutely destroyed me.

OK, who was that other guy in the chorus of three? I recognized PZ Myers, the headband tips me off to Hitchens – not surprised I didn’t make him out, I don’t pay much mind to the militant atheist crowd myself – though I did recognize Dennett.

I would say this is “equal opportunity mockery” except for the fact that folks who would recognize faces like PZ Myers and Genie Scott would have to be *very* familiar with the evo domain. I have also never seen a Darwin-basher, or for that matter any of the lunatic fringe, who had anything *resembling* this good a sense of humor. “If I was dyslexic I’d hate DOG too!” really was a zinger – “What?! OH!”

If they are equal opportunity mockers we should see a similar hiphop tribute to the DI – starring Phil Johnson, Dembski, Behe, Stein as the MC … chorus of Stephen Meyers, Jonathan Wells, Casey Luskin … and of course Denyse O’Leary getting DOWN!

Doesn’t anyone else see the hilarious irony of Peter touting the credentials of some YEC’s. They are smarter than you, they’ve got a Ph.D, Great, simply Great.

How could this not get us “teach the controversy” laws being passed all over the country?

Because, quite obviously, PZ (or Dawkins, or whoever is the atheistic bugaboo du jour) is not the spokesperson for science, nor do any of them have any significant influence on curriculum- and standard-writing, as can be plainly established by reading curricula and standards, and this is what should be made clear to the public. They express their own opinions, and they (as far as I am concerned) are welcome to, just as welcome as those who disagree with them.

People with a preoccupation for “framing” would do better, I think, to speak loudly and directly about the subject of the peaceful coexistence of science and religion, as opposed to wasting energies in meta-quarrels. If your concern is that the public will only hear PZ’s side, make sure they hear yours too: blog, write to your newspaper, participate in your school-board meetings, go talk in schools. There are a hundred more productive things to do to prevent “teach the controversy” curricula to take hold than reinforcing the creationists’ paranoia that the atheists are really out to get them.

The bodies of the caricatures all look like the same person to me.

I think GvlGeologist has the right idea of where this endless discussion has its greatest strengths.

All the religion-bashers can really say is pretty much what Hume said two centuries ago a lot better … and religion is still around.

Hmm. Why is it then that Russell’s teapot has such an appeal - is it not philosophy any longer?

Besides philosophy proceeding, there are also scientists doing so. I hate to bring up the same point again and again, but since he does so effectively (and I have it in recent memory); Dawkins in TGD has also an argument that Hume’s thinking isn’t relevant in IIR it C.

atheist educators are pushing evolution education with the hopes of undermining students’ religious belief

It may be a point of the movie, but it isn’t true any more than that religious educator’s are pushing evolution with the hopes of undermining students’ atheist stance. It is fairly easy to understand that if creationism where true there would be no atheists. The problem is with the people who doesn’t understand what facts is. This is of course why education is pushed.

If your frame is that there can be a peaceful coexistence of science and religion, your argument pointing to your need of silencing contrary opinion does a terrible job of supporting it. I agree with Andrea (and implicitly GvlGeologist) that a positive argument trumps a negative any time, and especially here.

The rapper sounds a bit like MC 900 ft. Jesus from back in the late 80’s.

I’d just like to say that Mike is very likely lying - PZ posted the ENTIRE CLIP of that section denouncing religion on his blog on 21st March, and lamented that he had been soft on the issue.

Also, that clip has now been removed due to a copyright claim by Premise Media, although PZ picked it up from a free DVD they were giving away at the show.

Yep. Pull up “If I Only Had a Brain” or “Truth is Out of Style” on youtube. I’m pretty sure that’s Mark Griffin rapping.

All the religion-bashers can really say is pretty much what Hume said two centuries ago a lot better … and religion is still around.

Actually, improvements have been made on Hume’s arguments. Read Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion from a post-Darwinian perspective, and realize that Hume did not have that opportunity. He quickly dismisses the ontological and cosmological arguments, then spends most of his time pounding on the argument from design before eventually acquiescing. If you look closely enough, you can find such astounding “facts” advanced in favor of the argument from design as that no species are known to have gone extinct. A good dose of 19th century science, including natural selection, would certainly have firmed up Hume’s offering.

You are right that religionists tend to ignore the state of intellectual discourse on the topic.

“your argument pointing to your need of silencing contrary opinion does a terrible job of supporting it.”

This isn’t what’s being said, and I suspect the assertion isn’t an honest mistake. There’s a huge difference between being an icon and being silent. I doubt very much that anyone of significance has told Myers to “shut up”, and I’m not even addressing him. What I’m stating is absolutely necessary is that the educational and scientific community (you can include Myers in that or not, up to you) focus on the majority misconception that science undermines religion. Science can’t procede successfully without the general public understanding, and accepting, peer review. The days when the ivory tower could just ignore the great unwashed disappeared when we became dependant on their money. The major focus of the anti-science campaign is on discrediting peer review. Its easy enough to do. Its elitist, unfair, and the participants very often are, in fact, arrogant. School and public education has to relentlessly emphasize the truth: that scientific peer review is concerned ONLY with the science. There’s no reason to fear that biologists, geologists, or climatologists are interested in imposing social change through science.

Myers’ comments in the movie, now being leaked by Egnor on the DI complaints page (pity PZ couldn’t have let us know earlier)

“Leaked”? What are you going on about? It was on YouTube, and I linked to it myself last week, quite some time before Egnor noticed it.

atheist educators are pushing evolution education with the hopes of undermining students’ religious belief.

You quoted directly what I said, and you didn’t notice that I said nothing of the kind? Wow. You’re as bad as Egnor.

The “science leads to atheism”, or “science undermines religion” arguments are predicated on a couple of foundational assumptions:

1. That “religion” excludes all religions except the one held to by the complainant.

2. That the specific religion in question makes testable claims about the history or structure of the tangible world.

If a person holds to a religion that asserts a 6-day creation, a global flood, and a literal “halting” of the sun and moon in the sky, and there are no alternative religions available for that person, then yes, the destruction of those beliefs could very well leave no alternative but atheism.

If a person “needs” religion to explain the physical world, then they are very much at war with science.

There are, however, a fair number of religious traditions that make no such claim, and I don’t see where they are under any threat from science. Only problem is that judeo-christian-muslims consider those religions as the functional equivalent of atheism – because they “need” for their religion to explain their day-to-day physical existance.

This video seems to be the work of one of the two popular satirical creationist sites:

Yes, it’s up on the “Brites” site, with attribution to “The Brights”. (And a confusing future date. Dunno if it is more disinformation, or if something is up April 2. Anyway, the page looks to be added the same or following day.)

That organization must have taken them hard, and the implicit theme and attempts at satire fits well with the video.

Though I looked at some of similar other “art” over there, and confusingly it is as brain dead and juvenile as Dembski’s fart animation as opposed to this witty ditty. I assume that if they wanted it more publicly viral they had to hire someone with intelligence and humor, and it backfired big time.

@ Mike:

This isn’t what’s being said, and I suspect the assertion isn’t an honest mistake.

I’m not sure if I have anything to add after PZ’s comment, except that you went on to assert the text I quoted:

But all that the majority of the country is going to see and remember next month is PZ Myers essentially saying that the purpose of evolution education is to convert kids to atheism. I’m not even paraphrasing that much. No, he doesn’t use the word “convert”, but it doesn’t matter. The great unwashed will understand perfectly what he means.

So much for “I’m not even addressing him”.

What I’m stating is absolutely necessary is that the educational and scientific community (you can include Myers in that or not, up to you) focus on the majority misconception that science undermines religion.

First, it isn’t up to anyone person, you or me, to include or exclude educators or scientists, they do so by their participation or not.

Second, this is another argument entirely. As PZ and the others mentioned in the movie has more on their agenda, you can’t expect them to support this. So it is also a separate subject.

There are a hundred more productive things to do to prevent “teach the controversy” curricula to take hold than reinforcing the creationists’ paranoia that the atheists are really out to get them.

you mean like misrepresenting what the atheists are actually doing?

bad show old boy.

people like you and Pim keep seeming to forget that it’s not the scientists, nor the atheists, that are trying to pass legislation to teach creationism in secondary schools.

You mistake reaction for proaction.

enough already.

Ichthyic, you may want to re-read what I wrote, and then think about what it means. Then maybe you can write a comment (though you can skip this last part, really).

i read it quite clearly:

If your concern is that the public will only hear PZ’s side,

you keep seeming to miss the fact that PZ IS ON THE SAME SIDE.

yeah, I did too the first couple of months I ever visited Pharyngula (that was like, 4 years ago now?), but it quickly became clear that I too misinterpreted his message and actions.

I projected the mere fact he was an atheist onto what he was actually saying in his posts.

I was quickly shown to be in error.

why is it taking so damn long for others around here to see the same?

again, saying that the “public will only hear PZ’s side” implies there is a different side.

he has NEVER said science is incompatible with religion itself. he has pointed out the many occasions where individuals have failed to compartmentalize the two things, however.

so yes, I read you quite clearly.

are you reading me?

Ichthyic said:

i read it quite clearly:

Well, then maybe I guess I wasn’t clear enough, because I doubt you are that thick.

I was responding to Mike, who was concerned that PZ’s and Dawkins’s words may convince school boards that atheists are out to indoctrinate their kids into atheism, and pass “teach the controversy” resolutions. I simply pointed out that PZ has all the right to express his own opinions, whatever they are, and that if Mike and “people with a preoccupation for framing” have concerns about their potential negative effects, the best thing they can do to prevent them is to talk directly to the public, as opposed to engaging in meta-quarrels that quite simply reinforce the Creationists’ paranoias. Clear now?

Yes, it’s up on the “Brites” site, with attribution to “The Brights”.

Is that a pro-ID site? I think the parody is somewhat grander than fart-noises…

Torbjörn Larsson, OM:

This video seems to be the work of one of the two popular satirical creationist sites:

Yes, it’s up on the “Brites” site, with attribution to “The Brights”. (And a confusing future date. Dunno if it is more disinformation, or if something is up April 2. Anyway, the page looks to be added the same or following day.)

That organization must have taken them hard, and the implicit theme and attempts at satire fits well with the video.

Though I looked at some of similar other “art” over there, and confusingly it is as brain dead and juvenile as Dembski’s fart animation as opposed to this witty ditty. I assume that if they wanted it more publicly viral they had to hire someone with intelligence and humor, and it backfired big time.

Ha ha. You almost got me there. :)

Torben:

Yes, it’s up on the “Brites” site, with attribution to “The Brights”.

Is that a pro-ID site? I think the parody is somewhat grander than fart-noises…

If it is by The Brites, then it’s a perfect example of exaptation… since it’s funny to pro-scientists for quite different reasons.

It’s April Fools, so several sites might claim to be the originator of the video. However, until the youtube account holder, “randomslice”, says something on their own account, I don’t think any “I am randomslice” comments should be trusted.

The movie is produced by JibJab on behalf of Expelled: the movie. You remember JibJab? They did that “This land is your land” movie last US election. See JibJab.com

And remember, you heard it here first!

Sean

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on March 28, 2008 8:30 PM.

We Were Invited to Expelled Conference Call was the previous entry in this blog.

Guardian on Expelled: A step to the right is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter