Seed Media Group

Pharyngula

Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal

Search

Profile

pzm_profile_pic.jpg
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
zf_pharyngula.jpg …and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
a longer profile of yours truly
my calendar
Nature Network
RichardDawkins Network
facebook
MySpace
Twitter
Atheist Nexus
the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

tbbadge.gif
scarlet_A.png
I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

(Complete listing)

Reason shapes the future, but superstition infects the present.

[Iain M Banks]

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

(Complete listing)

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

(Complete listing)

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.

Sign me up!

« Octopus fight! | Main | Public schools aren't bad »

An Adequate poem

Category: CreationismHumor
Posted on: August 19, 2006 9:58 AM, by PZ Myers

This poem from the EvC Forum, "Another Reply To Bishop Wilberforce," tickled my fancy, so here it is. All credit goes to the author, who goes by the name Dr Adequate.

Another Reply To Bishop Wilberforce
"I asserted — and I repeat — that a man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling it would rather be a man — a man of restless and versatile intellect — who, not content with an equivocal success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions and skilled appeals to religious prejudice." --- T. H. Huxley's reply to Bishop Wilberforce, as reported by J. R. Green.

I'll wager that you'll never see
a monkey or a chimpanzee
denying they are kin to me;
they've got more sense.
In all my life I never knew
a wallaby or kangaroo
to disagree with Darwin's view
and take offence.

Creationists cannot pretend
that any rodent would descend
so very low as to defend
or back their side.
No tiger stalks you to explain
how Darwin softens up the brain
and nor do lions (in the main)
they've got more pride.

The works of Gish and Johnson both
(so naturalists will take their oath)
do not convince the three-toed sloth
or slender loris;
and self-respecting plankton, I'm
informed, have very little time
for less developed forms of slime
like Henry Morris.

No matter how Kent Hovind prates,
close observation demonstrates
no members of the ungulates
endorse his views.
For antelope he's no allure;
impala find his works obscure;
and wildebeest are too mature
(but that's old gnus).

Creationists cannot deceive
orang-utans: they're not naive.
They hear them out, but don't believe
a word they tell 'em.
E. coli cannot understand
why Behe's books are in demand
and wouldn't want to shake his hand
with its flagellum.

Amongst the lemurs, not a word
in praise of William Dembski's heard;
his work's considered quite absurd
in Madagascan climates.
The howler monkeys' tuneful throngs
are not debating in their songs
if Bishop Wilberforce belongs
among the primates.

But Man, that self-conceited chap
this "clever man", this Homo sap.
can't find his arse without a map
--- pretentious clown!
It seems the swelling of his brain
has only made him quite insane.
Let's climb into the trees again
and not come down.

TrackBacks

(TrackBack URL for this entry: )

Comments

#1

Just keep your atheistic rants off the Kansas Citizens for Science site.

You hurt the cause of science in Kansas.

Once the evolutionists are in control, of course, then we can push the atheism.

Unconsitutional?

No way, the ACLU can just sue to protect the atheistic rants!

Posted by: JB | August 19, 2006 10:22 AM

#2

I would be more impressed, JB, if you could spell 'unconstitutional'.

Posted by: Caledonian | August 19, 2006 10:44 AM

#3

Thanks, PZ. I always appreciate cleverly worded verse. Made my morning!

Posted by: lmwanderer | August 19, 2006 10:46 AM

#4

Delightful.

Posted by: Scott Hatfield | August 19, 2006 11:16 AM

#5

If religion is strictly not allowed into science, does that mean that science is atheistic?

It sounds to me a little like the difference between something that's invisible and something that can't be seen.

At any rate, I'd say that a scientific website should be more receptive to atheistic points of view than theistic ones.

Posted by: Rowan | August 19, 2006 12:39 PM

#6

I think it's more that science doesn't feel a need to take seriously statements equivalent to "You have an invisible, intangible parrot on your shoulder." The statement is undisprovable, but not deserving of equal time in science classes.

N.B. I intend no disrespect to the visible shoulder parrots of the piratic Pastafarians.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 19, 2006 12:42 PM

#7

Lovely. But actually it felt more than adequate. ;-)

Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | August 19, 2006 1:20 PM

#8

JB:

As a private matter, I'm a believer but as a member of the scientific community properly speaking I have no views on the supernatural. Doing good science means doing it without appealing to the Almighty, but that doesn't mean that scientists 'push' atheism on anyone as a personal matter. We simply insist that science itself be practiced (and taught) without appeals to the supernatural. And the involvement of organizations like the ACLU helps safeguard the religious liberties of all persons, not just atheists.

By the way, people, if you like this poem, you'll love a song by Elvis Costello called "Monkey To Man".

Scott

Posted by: Scott Hatfield | August 19, 2006 2:02 PM

#9

Caledonian: Why would you be impressed with a concern troll, whether or not it could spell?

Oh no, please don't come onto our pro-evolution site and post something in support of evolution, that would be so terrible! You simply must go away and leave all the argument to the respectable religious types before you damage our cause by supporting it!

Hogwash. Accommodationism has gotten us nowhere - or worse. It's time to stand up for reason. And it's transparently obvious that this "complaint" is a creationist attempt to drive a wedge between atheist supporters of science and theist supporters of science.

Posted by: Chris | August 19, 2006 6:40 PM

#10

PZ, do you often lurk around the EvC Forum? If not, I invite you to do so. If you're already a lurker, I invite you to post.

If you're already a poster I hope you'll tell us what your username is, there.

Posted by: Chet | August 19, 2006 7:17 PM

#11

If religion is strictly not allowed into science, does that mean that science is atheistic?

Yes. So is Hungry Hungy Hippos.

Posted by: Righteous Bubba | August 20, 2006 3:51 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting.)





Having problems commenting? (UPDATED)

Blogs in the Network

Advertisement

Top Five: Most Active

  1. Unclear on the concept 01.07.2009 · PZ Myers
  2. Excuses, excuses 01.07.2009 · PZ Myers
  3. Ann Coulter's Lies 01.07.2009 · Ed Brayton
  4. Chris Buttars and the Mormon Gulag 01.07.2009 · Ed Brayton
  5. How To Choose A Post-Doc 01.07.2009 · PhysioProf

Search All Blogs

Science News From:

Science News from NYTimes.com