Pharyngula

Bad satire

I’ve remarked before how difficult it is to satirize creationists — they’re already so absurd that any mockery is often overtaken by the reality. There is a corollary: creationists shouldn’t try to do satire. They really, really suck at it. This fellow from Sebring, Florida, William Dailey, Jr., has created a web site called the First Church of Evolution, for instance. There’s not much to it; he seems to have simply vented his spleen in a few text pages, but while he may think he was cleverly making fun of evolutionists, but all he really accomplished was to parade his own misconceptions. Here’s a sample:

Statement Of Faith

NATURAL SELECTION

We believe Natural Selection is a God to many, with the power of chance to form all things. This unseen, unknown force is the power for those who truly believe they have ascended from lower animals.

CHARLES DARWIN

We believe Charles Darwin is the prophet of Natural Selection. Having been chosen by Natural Selection, he has evolved to the most high prophet, having visualized through imagination the formation of all living things.

DECENT

The belief in positive mutation of living things which have descended from a common ancester, through millions of years in time and gazillions of transitions is a matter of faith.

THE SACRED WRITINGS

We believe that each of the written words of the Prophet Charles Darwin are as holy scripture among those who by faith believe they have evolved from lower animals.

CHANGE OF SPECIES

We believe change above or below species such as frog to dog, pig or monkey to man is a matter of unquestionable faith.

WE BELIEVE IT TAKES FAITH TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION

Not even close. Look, a good satire needs a germ of truth to it. You need to take an actual attitude prevalent in the group you are making and just give it a little twist, enough that your target can recognize themselves and be made a bit uncomfortable. This is at best a satire of creationists, because it reflects their attitudes about faith more than ours.

Sorry, Bill. Go back to the drawing board, and aim for a little subtlety. This effort reminds me of a second-grader’s attempt at mockery, the kind of thing where a kid tries to make fun of someone else by making a funny face and announcing, “Durrr, I’m Suzy. I’m a poopy-head. Durrr.” I cringe when I see it, not because it’s struck anywhere near the mark, but because the poor dope doing it looks so foolish.

Comments

  1. #1 MartinM
    January 29, 2008

    …all he really accomplished was to parade his own misconceptions.

    Not overly surprising. Satire requires one to have a solid understanding of the subject matter, whereas creationism requires one not to.

  2. #2 Carlie
    January 29, 2008

    I like how he defines “decent”. Yes, he has no idea what “decent” means, although I don’t think that was what he was trying to get across.

  3. #3 dcwp
    January 29, 2008

    So you’re sure this is supposed to be satire of scientists?

    It almost looks like some kind of double-folded meta-satire showing the absurdity of the common argument made by creationists that evolution is ‘faith’ or ‘religion.’ But I guess that assumes that people reading this immediately see how ridiculous is the notion that scientists take anything “as holy scripture” – particularly a theoretical framework we work tirelessly to test and falsify.

    I suppose I could click the link and find out for myself, but I really can’t afford that much stupid right before doing four lectures in a row… I’ll look this afternoon.

  4. #4 AJS
    January 29, 2008

    If this is meant to be a creationist trying to satirise evolution, then it’s an abject failure. If it’s meant to be a satire of creationism, it works.

  5. #5 Richard Harris
    January 29, 2008

    To people like Dailey, his beliefs & our beliefs are equivalent, except that he believes that we’ve got it wrong, that is, it’s a difference in details. For us, we recognize that his beliefs are fundamentally different to our’s. His beliefs depend upon a massive act of faith, whereas our beliefs have whittled faith down to the minimum to allow us to deny solipsism, & we rely upon evidence.

    We understand them, but they don’t seem to understand us, hence the sort of crap that he’s produced here.

  6. #6 Moggie
    January 29, 2008

    Needs more fart noises.

    I’ve wondered before why in-your-face Christians seem to suck at humour (not just satire). I know that’s a huge generalisation, and doubtless there are exceptions, but almost every time I’ve witnessed such a display, it’s been pitiful: like they’ve earnestly learned the concepts of “humour” and “joke” from a textbook they bought off Abunga.

  7. #7 HumanisticJones
    January 29, 2008

    It almost looks like some kind of double-folded meta-satire showing the absurdity of the common argument made by creationists that evolution is ‘faith’ or ‘religion.’
    I would actually be impressed if this was any kind of meta-commentary on the whole issue, a sort of making light of the way that creationists fail hard at making light of evolution. Unfortunately, I feel there is the distinct possibility that we are looking at a Meta-Poe’s Law, that any satire of a creationism in the form of the creationist satirizing evolution is indistinguishable from a creationist attempting to satirize evolution.

  8. #8 SteveC
    January 29, 2008

    Their grand conclusion? WE BELIEVE IT TAKES FAITH TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.

    So, let’s see if we can look on the bright side.

    1) Creationist disagrees vehemently with the conclusion that evolution is true.

    2) Creationist accuses those who think evolution is true of using faith.

    #1 is just sad, #2 is a bit of a bright spot though.

    Clearly this creationist has reached the conclusion that faith is not a good way to decide what’s true and what’s not, and it’s clear he knows there’s something terribly wrong with the notion of faith in general.

  9. #9 Curt Cameron
    January 29, 2008

    CHARLES DARWIN

    We believe Charles Darwin is the prophet of Natural Selection. Having been chosen by Natural Selection, he has evolved to the most high prophet, having visualized through imagination the formation of all living things.

    This one stands out as fairly reasonable.

    WE BELIEVE IT TAKES FAITH TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION

    Was he out of the satire mode, and speaking of his own views at this point? Clearly, creationists believe it takes faith to believe evolution happened, but reasonable people understand that it’s evidence they’re swayed by.

  10. #10 Ginger Yellow
    January 29, 2008

    Bad spelling…check
    Projection of reliance on texts and authority figures…check
    Complete igorance of cladistics…check
    Belief that natural selection is about chance…check
    Belief that evolution is linear…check

    Isn’t parody supposed to mimic the target, not the parodist?

  11. #11 danley
    January 29, 2008

    Egregious conflation is what you’d expect from simpering sycophants. Christards unite!

  12. #12 Larry
    January 29, 2008

    It almost looks like some kind of double-folded meta-satire showing the absurdity of the common argument made by creationists that evolution is ‘faith’ or ‘religion.’

    Unless its a clever triple satire of a creationist pretending to satarize a creationist satarizing a scientist, or a very rare four-banger satire where its a…

    Oh, thats done it. Now I’ve gone cross-eyed again.

  13. #13 Anon
    January 29, 2008

    Good satire of evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis

    (Don’t be put off by the title–it’s not the same as the McGrath & McGrath book)

  14. #14 Rev. BigDumbCHimp
    January 29, 2008

    Gotta love the Science grade to death correlation post.

  15. #15 Dan
    January 29, 2008

    If this is meant to be a creationist trying to satirise evolution, then it’s an abject failure. If it’s meant to be a satire of creationism, it works.

    Posted by: AJS

    That’s what I was thinking. This thing is pretty damn lame from the get go. However, if it’s an atheist pretending to be a creationist pretending to satirize atheism, then it might actually be genius.

    It’s hard to tell really since creationists tend to use a lot of different fonts with random capitalization and a vast palate of colors. So, either this was written by an atheist, or it was put together by a creationist who can actually read but chooses not to.

  16. #16 GodlessHeathen
    January 29, 2008

    Religion and its by-products (such as creationism) are a matter of emotions. Growing up thinking you’re the special little favorite of a super sky-daddy makes a person feel good, and then hearing that you might “just” be “an ape” is quite an emotional let-down. Might even make some really angry to hear it suggested.

    That evolution is well backed by evidence would make the reaction to it worse.

    PZ hits the proverbial nail on the head with his analogy to 2nd grade. The little tykes are just going for what makes them feel bad – what they say isn’t the point, it’s how they say it. Pure emotional expression.

  17. #17 intelligent designr
    January 29, 2008

    http://intelligentdesignr.org.uk – this is how it’s done properly

  18. #18 Berlzebub
    January 29, 2008

    @ Dan:

    You should switch “atheist” with “evolutionist” (although I hate the term evolutionist). It isn’t only atheists who consider evolution to be the better option.

  19. #19 Moggie
    January 29, 2008

    Curt@#9: no, claiming that Darwin is “most high prophet” is not at all reasonable. Science does not have prophets, or messiahs, or popes. Darwin did excellent work which has been built on greatly since, and for this he deserves respect, but evolution does not require him to be put on a pedestal. Creationists put a lot of effort into trying to tarnish the man: the “deathbed recantation” story, the claims that he was racist, the “lousy at mathematics” slurs etc, because they’re so wedded to the concept of Truth being handed down by infallible authority figures. But how much damage does this cause to the standing of evolution among the sane? None at all!

  20. #20 Shane
    January 29, 2008

    Cripes – that’s bad.

    For one *nearly* as dumb (but much more verbose), try http://questiondarwin.blogspot.com – go on – head over and give “Darwin Dissenter” a wee bit of love. He’s been feeling a little left out, due to a lack of comments on the ubiquitous Hitler-lvs-Darwin thread.

    Or don’t, unless you can spare the loss of several million neurons.

  21. #21 Ric
    January 29, 2008

    Yeah, it’s about as dumb as those “satires” posted by “Galapagos Finch” over on Uncommon Descent. I think this guy and “Galapagos Finch” are competing to see who can be less funny.

  22. #22 Jason Failes
    January 29, 2008

    What we have to drill in time and again is that Natural Selection and Evolution and Darwin are not synonymous.

    All the facts creationists hate, our genetic relatedness to chimpanzees and bonobos, common ancestry with all life on Earth, billion-year time frames, the absence of human remains from the geological record until the most recent deposited layers, the lack of evidence of a global flood, etc, all would remain with or without Darwin, with or without the theory of natural selection.

    I often wish that Darwin had brought out Origin in two separate volumes to accomplish the two goals of his book: To describe the evidence for and patterns in evolution over the course of Earth’s history, and to introduce his explanation for those observations, natural selection. Or that someone else had written a famous description of Evolution before Darwin introduced his theory of Natural Selection, or something, anything, to give these people one less breeding ground for misconception.

    Sigh, who am I kidding? They would just be complaining about the Wallacian orthodoxy….

  23. #23 Kseniya
    January 29, 2008

    I think this guy and “Galapagos Finch” are competing to see who can be less funny.

    Yes, and the lucky winner should be immortalized in Dan’s Pulpit.

  24. #24 Rick
    January 29, 2008

    “It’s hard to tell really since creationists tend to use a lot of different fonts with random capitalization and a vast palate of colors.”

    So matter-of-factly stated yet it’s true and hilarious.

  25. #25 Marcus Ranum
    January 29, 2008

    If this kind of satire evolved why do we still have Southpark? Huh? Answer me that, smart-boy!

  26. #26 Logician
    January 29, 2008

    Checked out the site intelligentdesingr. LMAO. The hilarious textbook “Of Hamsters and Humans” by Dr. Ed. E.Vidence is a priceless satire of “Of Pandas and People”, surely one of the most perniciously evil things ever written.
    The rest of the site is of the same high quality.

    Thanks for the link!

  27. #27 Peter Ashby
    January 29, 2008

    Curt@#9 the bit about him imagining evolution means they think he had no evidence for it. IOW the idea is that he just invented it. So it is not at all reasonable. It helps to have been there and to know how these people think.

  28. #28 fardels bear
    January 29, 2008

    You are right PZ! Suzy IS a poopy-head! Har!

  29. #29 RamblinDude
    January 29, 2008

    I’ve wondered before why in-your-face Christians seem to suck at humour (not just satire).

    Oh, I know! The in-your-facers are on a more “spiritual” plane than everybody else. They only tell jokes that Jesus would tell. Needless to say, they don’t get much practice with humor.

  30. #30 Moses
    January 29, 2008

    I left him a comment:

    Is this satire, or are you serious? Because it’s a classic mash-up of various creo-bot arguments from ignorance and authority with a bit of ad hominem thrown in.

    If you could let us know here:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/bad_satire.php#comments

    Because some of us are not sure if you’re a brilliant satirist or just another clown spouting off on things he doesn’t comprehend.

    Thanks.

  31. #31 Scott Hatfield, OM
    January 29, 2008

    This is a good example of why many psychologists consider projection to be a defense mechanism. Of course, the web site’s creator has directed the projection outward, so that it’s an ‘anti-Darwinian’ offensive, but at heart what you’ve got here is “you think I am, well you are, too, neener neener neener!”

  32. #32 cracked
    January 29, 2008

    This could actually have been created as a source for fake “quotes” for attacking the views of athiests and believers in science intended for use in other venues.

  33. #33 MartinM
    January 29, 2008

    “you think I am, well you are, too, neener neener neener!”

    In other words, it’s the same as every other creationist argument in history, pretty much.

  34. #34 Dan
    January 29, 2008

    @ Dan:

    You should switch “atheist” with “evolutionist” (although I hate the term evolutionist). It isn’t only atheists who consider evolution to be the better option.

    Posted by: Berlzebub

    Sorry about that.

  35. #35 Hank Fox
    January 29, 2008

    Something really nasty over there is the Jan. 24 post “Natural Selection Training”:

    “Correlating the Institute’s F through A point grading system in relation to the averaged murder rates within the continental United States, according to the FBI’s uniform crime reports, the grades look like this.”

    State Science Grade _____Annual murders per 100,000

    F ______________________ 4.466
    D ______________________ 4.514
    C ______________________ 5.087
    B ______________________ 5.983
    A ______________________ 6.283

    See what he’s saying? EDUCATED PEOPLE MURDER. The more educated you are, in science at least, the more you kill.

    More of the same anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-knowledge crap our nation is suffering through so much right now.

    And yet I don’t feel like coming down on the guy too hard. Something about the site gives me the feeling this might be the work of somebody about 13 years old.

  36. #36 Hipple, Rev. Paul T.
    January 29, 2008

    I’ve seen that interblog before and think it is brilliant! If Darwinists don’t get it, perhaps they don’t have a Sense of Humor?

    One can definitely see the Lord working in that one.

    -RPTH

  37. #37 Glen Davidson
    January 29, 2008

    Simply reiterating creationist/IDCist strawmen does not, as mentioned, constitute satire. What would be needed is some way of satirizing those strawmen, which seems to be impossible, since they’re already in bizarro land.

    It’s like trying to treat ID as if it were a religion. Never funny, because, by Jove, it is a tenet held by religionists, something Judge Jones did not find funny.

    There has always been more humor in trying to treat ID as if it were a science, trying to catch the Crass Imitator in the act and such things. At the very least, it is back to very bizarre to think of how one might do science with no standards, no criteria, and no expecations regarding design (the “prediction” that DNA doesn’t have any, or much, junk really is not a prediction, merely a post hoc attempt to twist and claim new findings).

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

  38. #38 Phoenix Woman
    January 29, 2008

    The projection is astounding, isn’t it?

    For instance: Notice how many of these guys have a heavy-duty Darwin obsession, and aim their heaviest pop-guns at him? They obviously feel that if they can take him down, they take down evolution. This is because they are such authoritarians, so lost without a Big Daddy/Mama to tell them what to do/think, that they think we all must be, too.

    They simply don’t understand that Darwin was but one of many researchers in the field of 19th century biology, and many of them were working along lines very similar to Darwin’s. Furthermore, they didn’t invent their theories out of whole cloth, but used the tested and evaluated work of other researchers before them as the foundation for their own work.

    It’s so ironic that they set up Darwin to be this magisterial authority figure, intolerant of correction. Not only is this a projection of their own authoritarianism, but it’s about 180 degrees from his true self-attitude: “If I am wrong,” he once wrote famously shortly before his death, concerning a discussion of the structure of coral reefs, “the sooner I am knocked on the head and annihilated so much the better.”

  39. #39 katie
    January 29, 2008

    Actually, this piece of really terrible satire has been bothering me the most…

    http://www.expelledthemovie.com/bigscienceacademy.php

    It’s not even funny :(

  40. #40 Peter Ashby
    January 29, 2008

    Agree in spades Phoenix Woman, I have recently finished Darwin and the Barnacle by Rebecca Stott and it is clear from her account that Darwin put off publishing The Origin not because he feared the reaction but because he felt he would be ignored if he had not proved his scientific credentials first. So he undertook to survey, describe, categorize and try and understand the barnacles. He won a Royal Society medal for his efforts and in the process he also created a network of friends and associates who had corresponded with, borrowed and swapped samples with and argued drafts of his manuscript. One of those people was Thomas Henry Huxley and after the Origin was published he was only the foremost of Darwins’ supporters. One to rush in firmly and didactically Charles Darwin most certainly was not.

    Besides which, mention the Modern Synthesis to a creationist or IDiot and they go ‘what?’ which is eloquence personified as to their complete and utter ignorance. I wonder if the Rev above can tell us all about he MS….

  41. #41 Kyle
    January 29, 2008

    That chart is what confuses me. It doesn’t serve the point of satire from a creationist standpoint — everyone can easily understand how absurd a link between education and murder is.

    Side note: just started Sagan’s “Demon Haunted World” and want to recommend it to anyone who’s neglected it thus far!

  42. #42 OneMadClown
    January 29, 2008

    You know, you’re all going to feel terrible when you find out that our little satirist is in fact retarded. I’m just saying.

  43. #43 Rey Fox
    January 29, 2008

    “WE BELIEVE IT TAKES FAITH TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION”

    Well shoot, guy, you just tipped your hand right there. No religious organization says “It takes faith to believe in Jesus/Mohammed/Bob”. At least, not until you’re argued them into a corner. So there’s your fundamental misunderstanding of satire, or maybe it’s a flag to the irony-impaired folks who that site undoubtedly targets.

  44. #44 Bob L
    January 29, 2008

    Man that’s bad. I’d forgive him it was WIP but it’s clear the alleged parodyer doesn’t have a punch-line for his joke so what’s to build on? Anyway a “church” of evolution is iffy, you’re more likely to end up sounding like some goofy new age cult than a bunch of science-geek atheists. No, the way to parody evolutionists is to claim to be the biology department of some fake university or the website of some fake best selling atheist professor/writer. Then make the punch-line that the so called scientists are in fact a part of some goofy new age cult and they are all speaking in code to sound like real science.

  45. #45 roystgnr
    January 29, 2008

    Looking on the bright side, it shows how much of the Age of Reason has been internalized by even those people who one might have thought got passed over by the Enlightenment.

    What do they do when they want to insult science? Call it “faith”! Claim it has “prophets” and “scriptures”! It’s as if they’ve given up on the idea that faith might be superior to evidence, and are just hoping to drag everyone else down to their level.

  46. #46 Sven DiMilo
    January 29, 2008

    ow! ow!! my eye-rolling muscles are cramping up!
    As it happens, I am in the middle of the autobiography of one of the truly great satirists of (IMO) all time, Paul Krassner.
    Now, this is satire. (Depending on where you W, NSFW)

  47. #47 Brownian, OM
    January 29, 2008

    Y’know, when I was a young whippersnapper learning my three R’s, any biology course that mentioned Charles Darwin also mentioned the early geologists and paleontologists like Arduino, Lyell, Hutton, and Smith and early biologists like Mendel, Buffon, Lamarck, and Wallace. Darwin was always presented as the man who provided the capstone that joined together the work of all of these other individuals (standing on the shoulders of giants and all that.)

    It wasn’t until I became involved in the culture wars that I heard Darwin’s name chanted from the rooftops. And never by the evolutionists.

    It’s almost like their understanding of thought itself is so poor that they can’t comprehend what it might be like to not blindly follow some perceived prophet.

    Sheeple is right. I detest these people for what they represent.

  48. #48 Brownian, OM
    January 29, 2008

    In the spirit of how science actually works, I’d like to note that Pheonix woman and Peter Ashby said what I said, but said it first.

    Take that, Christards!

  49. #49 zer0
    January 29, 2008

    To be fair, English spelling is ripe for a reform… but Decent != Descent. I love Eddie Izzard’s bit about American vs. British English and spelling. The Brit’s are always trying to cheat at scrabble with extra letters.

  50. #50 Brownian, OM
    January 29, 2008

    To be fair, the plural of ‘Brit’ doesn’t need an apostrophe.

  51. #51 Grand Moff Texan
    January 29, 2008

    So, William’s model of stupid is a church?

    That’s rather telling.
    .

  52. #52 JakeS
    January 29, 2008

    Looks like he’s discovered that correlation implies causation:

    State Science Grade Annual murders per 100,000
    F 4.466
    D 4.514
    C 5.087
    B 5.983
    A 6.283

  53. #53 JakeS
    January 29, 2008

    Looks like he holds comments for moderation too. I’m sure everyone is flooding his two posts right now, and I wonder if any will see the light of day.

    Also, are you sure this is a creationist’s parody of evolution? Seems that it is a better parody of what creationists think of evolution.

  54. #54 Quidam
    January 29, 2008

    He also lies. I was surprised by the murder rate statistic, murder and religiocity correllate fairly well.

    I compared the table for State Science grade http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/about/press_release.cfm?id=20 with murder rates (for 2005) http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html

    My results differ from his

    A 5.81
    B 6.13
    C 7.31
    D 4.39
    F 3.93

    If this shows anything it is that being a C student is dangerous.

  55. #55 uncle frogy
    January 29, 2008

    I followed the link above read this and could hardly stop laughing as it sounded so sincere
    ” Only something massively complex could possibly have designed the universe; what that might be, we don’t know – it could be anyone or anything. Many serious electricians, vets, mathematicians, kinesiologists and nutritionists have grappled with this question”

    I do feel sorry for creationist and other “fundies” the fear and pain that must drive them to fight reality so hard must be severe. The desperate need to be the most important thing in the universe next to “God”.
    well damn what can I say. I may feel compassion for them and some understanding but that does not prevent me from resisting them at every opportunity, nor allow people of like mind to be in any position of authority. The mentally ill should be helped and understood and not pandered to.
    I see an element of paranoia in religion. It is this aspect, the paranoid is the target of some “evil force” why because he is important, instead of just some insignificant unimportant part of the universe (the creation) often stemming from feelings of fear, pain, abuse and isolation.

    I know on a personal level mentally ill people who have a similar understanding and could have written that blog.

    I do not hate mad dogs but I don’t try to pet them either

  56. #56 uncle frogy
    January 29, 2008

    I followed the link above read this and could hardly stop laughing as it sounded so sincere
    ” Only something massively complex could possibly have designed the universe; what that might be, we don’t know – it could be anyone or anything. Many serious electricians, vets, mathematicians, kinesiologists and nutritionists have grappled with this question”

    I do feel sorry for creationist and other “fundies” the fear and pain that must drive them to fight reality so hard must be severe. The desperate need to be the most important thing in the universe next to “God”.
    well damn what can I say. I may feel compassion for them and some understanding but that does not prevent me from resisting them at every opportunity, nor allow people of like mind to be in any position of authority. The mentally ill should be helped and understood and not pandered to.
    I see an element of paranoia in religion. It is this aspect, the paranoid is the target of some “evil force” why because he is important, instead of just some insignificant unimportant part of the universe (the creation) often stemming from feelings of fear, pain, abuse and isolation.

    I know on a personal level mentally ill people who have a similar understanding and could have written that blog.

    I do not hate mad dogs but I don’t try to pet them either

  57. #57 Gingerbaker
    January 29, 2008

    zero said“The Brit’s are always trying to cheat at scrabble with extra letters.”

    Funny you mention Scrabble – I have been thinking it may offer a useful paradigm to counter the IDiocy that evolution is completely random – like assembling a 747 with a windstorm in a junkyard.

    Evolution is about as “random” as the result you see on a Scrabble board – after all, the letters are chosen blindly – completely at random.

    And most combinations of those letters are pretty useless – they don’t form words, or work for the board, or score high points.

    But some combinations are winners, and they end up creating an ordered board. Order from randomness.

    Not perfect, but most people are at least familiar with the game.

  58. #58 noncarborundum
    January 29, 2008

    Actually, this piece of really terrible satire has been bothering me the most…

    http://www.expelledthemovie.com/bigscienceacademy.php

    It’s not even funny :(

    Yeah, you’d almost imagine Dembski had something to do with it, if it weren’t utterly lacking in fart noises.

    If this shows anything it is that being a C student is dangerous.

    IIRC, George W. Bush was a C student. Coincidence?

  59. #59 dsmccoy
    January 29, 2008

    Yeah, to satirize something, you need to have at least some understanding of it.
    Most creationists don’t really have an inkling of what evolution means, hence would be incapable of producing a satire of it. This one is so pathetic, he can’t even get the voice right “IS A GOD TO MANY”, is obviously the “satirist” talking instead of the object of the satire talking.

  60. #60 Brownian, OM
    January 29, 2008

    Gingerbaker, so the player is the process of natural selection?

    Not a bad analogy, though I can see one disadvantage: the IDiots will scream that the player is using ‘design’ when they mix the letters to form valid words.

  61. #61 Joel
    January 29, 2008

    This seems to be a coordinated satirical attack. Our friend Ray Comfort posted something very similar just recently…

    http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2008/01/blind-faithful.html

  62. #62 jpf
    January 29, 2008

    See what he’s saying? EDUCATED PEOPLE MURDER. The more educated you are, in science at least, the more you kill.

    It’s not just educated people, it’s people educated in EVOLUTION, which leads straight to MURDER! Remember, you can’t spell “REVOLVER” without “EVOLVE”!

  63. #63 Bob L
    January 29, 2008

    “This seems to be a coordinated satirical attack. Our friend Ray Comfort posted something very similar just recently…”

    Is Ray Comfort supposed to be parodying atheists? I can’t make up my mind if he’s an utter idiot or anti-creationists parody too close to the line or an Xian showing his brotherly love for his fellow man by trolling.

  64. #64 George
    January 29, 2008

    I feel like this is supposed to be some sort of counter-parody to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    Only, the Church of the FSM is more of a running gag than a true parody. Sorry, FCoE guys, you should pay more attention next time.

  65. #65 allonym
    January 29, 2008

    On the topic of creationist parody being indistinguishable from creationist rhetoric, I found this fun little website today:

    OBJECTIVE: 4 Kidz with Lambuel!

    The whole site walks the line, but in particular the “Kidz Crafts” tab reads like a most ridiculous parody of creatardism (for kids!). But it is not, and you can’t make this stuff up?

    ?except that the creationists do just make this stuff up

  66. #66 Brian X
    January 29, 2008

    #5 Richard Harris:

    Christians have been doing that throughout history. Back during the Middle Ages, Christians believed Islam had their own holy trinity consisting of Apollyon (Allah?), Mahound (Muhammad), and Tervagant, and the very concept of a Satanic Black Mass comes from the same sort of assumed mirroring. To someone who’s drunk enough Koolaid, it’s literally impossible to believe that someone else’s belief system may have nothing to do with theirs.

  67. #67 Blondin
    January 29, 2008

    What rubbish! I know lots of people with degrees & doctorates and most of them have hardly every murdered anybody.

  68. #68 Steven Sullivan
    January 31, 2008

    This idiot’s blathering was similar to what I heard tonight from a one Rabbi Schmulye Boteach, in debating Hitchens on ‘Is there a God?” at the 92nd St. Y. He trotted out the usual ‘evolutionists believe natural selection can do anything’ and ‘it takes faith to believe in evolution’ twitticisms. The real show-stopper, though , was his amazing claim –repeated at high volume at least twice –that Stephen Jay Gould did NOT believe in evolution (“He did not believe in evolution!! He believed in punctuated equilibrium!!!”) Even Hitchens was bemused by the shameless absurdity of that, and advised the Rabbi to consult certain writings by Gould in refutation…such as ANY CHAPTER of any of his books.

  69. #69 Steven Sullivan
    February 4, 2008

    And labelling Hitchens a ‘neocon’ is just silly and lazy. Neoconservatism is not defined only by support for the Iraq war, or opposition to Islamic ‘fascism’. But that’s the ONLY intersection between neocons and Hitchens. It’s like calling Boteach a Christian because he agrees with the the DI about creationism.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.