Pharyngula

It’s a lot cheaper than making a movie and trying to persuade all those scientists to shut up.

i-0bad70b3f27b8ba3451aa28262576e64-steins_hat.jpg

Let’s be fair — somebody used a little photoshop on me, too. But really, my head isn’t that small, I’m not quite that chunky, and I’d never use a gun.

Comments

  1. #1 Michael X
    January 24, 2008

    Nor should anyone ever wear those shorts.

  2. #2 LisaJ
    January 24, 2008

    hahaha, awesome. Looks great on him.

  3. #3 John Phillips, FCD
    January 24, 2008

    You don’t need a gun against those two ghouls, just sic Abbie the IDiot slayer on them and you won’t see them for dust :)

  4. #4 Glen Davidson
    January 24, 2008

    I doubt Ben has much trouble keeping information out of his brain, though. He’s too busy yapping and writing to learn much of anything, cause, like, he was told he was so smart in college that he only needs to tell others what to think. He didn’t trudge his way to the Smithsonian to learn anything, only to harangue people for not being nice to poor little ol’ Dickie Sternberg.

    Ben Stein, the superhero of concern trolls (and a warning to concern trolls everywhere). His knowledge output with respect to science proves it.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  5. #5 Russell
    January 24, 2008

    PZ- Where on earth did you find the tin foil– the stuff is getting rare a Bromo Seltzer bottle glass:

    http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/01/foiled_again.html

  6. #6 Bride of Shrek
    January 24, 2008

    My, what a big nightstick you have PZ.

  7. #7 Milo Johnson
    January 24, 2008

    Isn’t that Dennis Rader’s body they pasted your head on?

  8. #8 ERV
    January 24, 2008

    I heart HalfMooner :)

  9. #9 Stuart Weinstein
    January 24, 2008

    PZ,

    You look good with a nightstick.

    Cut down on the doughnuts though…

    Stuart

  10. #10 Donalbain
    January 24, 2008

    For fuck’s sake people. We are on the side of intelligent debate. We have evidence on our side. We have rationality on our side…
    Please… let’s not hand them a win.

  11. #11 ERV
    January 24, 2008

    You are so right Donalbain.

    Click here to collect your reward.

  12. #12 Cardinal Zarquon
    January 24, 2008

    Ha! Our chief weapon is satire. Wait, our chief weapons are satire and derision. Our chief weapons are satire and derision and an almost fanatical devotion to the evidence. Amongst our weapons are satire, derision, an almost fanatical devotion to the evidence and sarcasm…

    Oh, I’ll come in again.

  13. #13 spurge
    January 24, 2008

    Thanks allot ERV.

    Now I have to tear my eyeballs out.

  14. #14 Donalbain
    January 24, 2008

    Oh, sorry PZ and Abbi, I thought this was the community that joined together to laugh at the animation of Darwin and Dawkins farting because it showed the woeful lack of intellectual impact the authors of those “jokes” had.

  15. #15 Michael X
    January 24, 2008

    We laughed at that because it actually wasn’t funny. We laugh at this because it actually has comedic value.

  16. #16 Tatarize
    January 24, 2008

    If they didn’t want their beliefs laughed at, they should have less funny beliefs.

  17. #17 H. Humbert
    January 24, 2008

    Donalbain, this was the community that joined together to laugh at the animation of Darwin and Dawkins farting because it was the sum total of the entire scientific output of the DI. PZ can point to some actual evidence-based research to support evolution, can Dembski do the same for ID? The DI wasn’t pathetic because it engaged in lowbrow humor or parody, but because it did nothing else. That was the high water mark for ID.

    I guess you were just on a different page than the rest of us.

  18. #18 minimalist
    January 24, 2008

    Donalbain,

    What made the fart animation comical is that *it’s all Demobski had*. After all this time, the ID folks have no theory, no original research, and no sign of any effort.

    It’s the fact that the Isaac Newton of Information Theory had *nothing else to do* but make fart animations.

    It’s all he has done. The sum total of his output.

    That’s what slayed me.

  19. #19 HalfMooner
    January 24, 2008

    My apologies, PZ, for a gut too large, a head too small, and a side-arm weapon too deadly. Also, my apologies to those who feel I have made things forever impossible for serious scientists to debate Creationists.

    I’m not a scientist, but I have supported science and rationality all my adult life. My talent, if any, lies within the area of mockery, and I choose to use what I have in defense of science against the howling demons of the theocratic Right. This Culture War thing is centered around serious science, but there’s plenty of room for parody as well, I think. Besides, that’s about all I can contribute.

    Sometimes, I mock “our” side, too, but I find that rational people usually don’t mind a joke. The Authoritarian Mind, however, absolutely hates mockery — and thus deserves and invites it.

  20. #20 Rachel I.
    January 24, 2008

    Oh, but making full-blown Flash animations with sound and all is wholly different than a quick shopping — compare how much time gets wasted on each project. Besides, tinfoil hattery is something that ID’ers *should* be accused off; fart-jokes bear no actual meaning. And the Behe thing, well, he really did start that one…

  21. #21 CJ
    January 25, 2008

    I notice that you’re not disclaiming the muscular arms, however.

  22. #22 John Phillips, FCD
    January 25, 2008

    Halfmooner, you just carry on and most of us will have a quiet chuckle or two of enjoyment. Your also right in that we’ll even have a good chuckle when you aim at one of our own occasionally, oh the joy of having a sense of humour :) Your again correct that ridicule can be a very effective weapon, especially when it is only one of many in our arsenal, truth and evidence being the primary ones. Unlike Dumbski’s and his fellow IDiots, who only have poorly executed fart animations, plagiarism, copyright infringment and lying for Jesus in their arsenal.

  23. #23 G. Tingey
    January 25, 2008

    Errr …

    Who Ben Stain?

  24. #24 Kristine
    January 25, 2008

    There’s a difference between intentional and unintentional humor, Donalbain.

  25. #25 holbach
    January 25, 2008

    From Bugs Bunny to Ben Stein: “Boy what a maroon!”
    Bugs has more smarts than that deranged cretin, and he is a
    created animated character that exhibits a sense of the
    ridiculous to amuse. There is nothing amusing about Stein
    and he should take more than a day off from inflicting
    his brand of insane crap. To quote Bugs again, “Boy what
    an imbicel!”.

  26. #26 Glen Davidson
    January 25, 2008

    Um, Donalbain, maybe you didn’t read all of the attacks on science and scientists for being lowbrow, sophomoric, or whatever other words reside in Berlinski’s muddled head (Berlinski just as a particularly egregious example of the rest of their rhetoric).

    The many claims that they were taking the high road were never credible, but they wouldn’t fly with anything but the most stupid IDiot after the fart video (Joe G and Bornagain might still think Dembski is classy).

    We always intended to, and said that we would, skewer and ridicule those buffoons–or at least many of us did. And Dembski made it even easier with his infamous video.

    Stein makes it easy with his near-total lack of scientific knowledge, plus a lot of particularly stupid statements like cells perhaps being intelligent. We can hardly “respond to the substance” of Stein’s statements, but we can and should laugh at some clown who thinks that “big science,” the courts, the media, and the educational sector are all out to get him and similar asshats.

    We’re not sending in the black helicopters, however, just the derision that all of those charlatans deserve.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  27. #27 RamblinDude
    January 25, 2008

    Well, I think we’re all being a little hard on Stein, so in the interest of being just a little more charitable, might I say that I think his pointy head looks somewhat better with a nice foily shine.

    (Any one else get an image of Stein spinning helplessly in a large pencil sharpener and shouting frantically, “Bueller…Bueller”?… … Just me?)

    Hey Stein, use all that trivia knowledge to curb ignorance, not spread it, why don’t ya.

  28. #28 Barklikeadog
    January 25, 2008

    Why take life so serious? Humor is a sign of intelligence, I think. But I’ve been accused of not doing that all too often. The more they scream & rant about our humor the more ridiculous they seem. & for those that are on the side of reason that are having a bad day, can you not find anything funny about their antics? When I was an undergrad my buddy & I thought we were watching a parody the first time Ernest Angley (sp?) came on late night TV. Anyone here remember Ernest? He was absolutely hilarious and serious as syphilis too. The Tards are so afraid of burning in hell to make any good humor anyway. PZ, can I go with you to Florida next time? Where was that beach you mentioned in the Florida thread?

  29. #29 RamblinDude
    January 25, 2008

    …some clown who thinks that “big science,” the courts, the media, and the educational sector are all out to get him and similar asshats.

    So that’s what an asshat looks like!

  30. #30 T. Bruce McNeely
    January 25, 2008

    So we’re being too rough on Ben Stein? Check this out:

    http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2008/01/25/where_is_the_hitler_zombie_shu/

    It’s all the respect that the contemptible prick deserves.

  31. #31 Glen Davidson
    January 25, 2008

    From McNeely’s link:

    If the origins of life all did happen by random mutation, he questioned, where does the laws that make the universe possible to function – the law of gravity, the law of thermodaynamics, laws of motion – all come from?

    “Who created these laws that keeps the planets in motion?” asked Stein. “These are fundamental questions” where Darwinism lacks explanations.

    Everything Stein writes about science makes him sound retarded.

    Fuckwit Stein, those “laws” are why the “origins of life” are not “random mutation,” as you dishonestly make them out to be. There’s nothing even slightly random about the forms of birds. And there’s nothing even slightly random about the fact that there is so much diversity, for the “laws” of science and the theory of evolution predict great diversity using a few “body plans,” just like we see (that is, it is predicted in context).

    What is more, the second law of thermodynamics is quite well explained in physics, and there are some ideas in physics about how other “laws” have come about. Only a true ignoramus would fault evolution for not addressing these matters, and only a dishonest ignoramus would keep on making the howlers that Stein does with respect to science.

    Of course Stein is just adopting the new tack of much of the ID crowd, use religion full-tilt to attack MET, never mind how dishonest and stupid any comparison of religious myth with the properly delimited MET happens to be. They don’t seem to care how stupid they sound any more, it’s just attack with religiously inspired hatred of any outsiders.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  32. #32 Glen Davidson
    January 25, 2008

    Correction to the above post: It’s not McNeely’s link, it’s the link found on McNeely’s link, from which my quote came, and from which the following quote comes:

    Ruloff hopes that the film will prompt congressional language to protect the free speech of people who dissent from Darwinism.

    Furthermore, he sees the documentary as creating a culture where things like the metaphysical can be openly discussed.

    “Eighty-five percent of people believe in a form of a deity – why can’t we talk about that?” asked Ruloff.

    This should show why there is no amount of ridicule and contempt that we can pour down upon Stein & company which would count as too much (except to ridiculous concern trolls, anyway).

    Ruloff is a contemptible wanking fool, who apparently doesn’t recognize that metaphysics is freely talked about not only in society, but also in academia. It happens not just in the many theology departments, but also in virtually all philosophy departments–though in the latter it typically does not fare too well. The mere fact that metaphysics has been found to be useless in science, as it is in judicial matters, is something that he thinks needs to be legislated against, since lies aren’t respected in the areas of science.

    Of course Ruloff is concerned that honest discussions of metaphysics (not that there is any indication that he knows anything about honest discussion) neither occur in science, nor typically end up supporting those unsupportable assertions. He’s aiming to make laws which will prevent any such blasphemy (he’s probably too stupid to know it, but that’s what it amounts to), thus totally gutting the constitution.

    And of course these dullards are completely unable to understand the irony of their speaking about God and metaphysics with no concern from the government at all, while complaining that they cannot do so. They can even make one of the most dishonest “movies” of all time, and have done so.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  33. #33 Dude
    January 28, 2008

    After you take the time to explain the workings of science, show and explain the evidence, and a person still considers a bronze age creation myth to have more value…. the only recourse is ridicule.

    Ben Stein is an educated man and a skilled writer, he deserves nothing less than the most harsh criticism and obscene ridicule we can imagine.

    It should be obvious to all those on PZ’s side of this “debate” (evolution vs creation mythology) that rational arguments do not work to influence the thinking of our opponents. Equally obvious (to me anyway) is that rational arguments laden with evidence work poorly on the average person as well. I’m sure we win some people over, but most will tune us out as soon as they fail to comprehend a sentence.

    Besides, I am of the opinion that the IDiots want us to engage them (and the public) with evidence and rational argument. They know they can “win” more debates with informal fallacy (the whole hovind/ham/gish strawman + emotional appeal thing). They want to keep us talking about facts while they use dishonest rhetorical tactics to sway opinions and spread lies.

    We have very few options when faced with irrational (possibly delusional) and dishonest ID advocates. We have to counter their claims with the standard tools available to us, mainly the weight of evidence and rational thinking, but we need a rhetorical device to counter their dishonesty.

    The only one, really, that lets us maintain our own integrity and honesty is ridicule.

    So keep up the good work ‘mooner (and other photoshop/flash people)!

    Now someone pass me some steel wool so I can scrub that behe/lilo pic out of my eyes…..

  34. #34 Leon
    January 28, 2008

    But really, my head isn’t that small, I’m not quite that chunky, and I’d never use a gun.

    I would! Hell yes. Of course, I only shoot paper targets (and possibly other inanimate objects, if they’re safe to shoot at).

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!