Pharyngula

Is he even listening to what he is saying?

Posted by: Blaznazn | April 25, 2008 8:21 PM

I love that the crationists are too dense to recognize satire.

They wouldn't recognize bad logic if it fell off the edge of the earth.

Posted by: Steve_C | April 25, 2008 8:25 PM

I don't think God approves of soul patches. Edward must be a heretic. (Or a satirist!)

Really, though, the flat cross on the wall appears to be made of two pieces of construction paper. Edward should have dug up a more substantial prop.

I do, however, like the use of earth tones throughout the scene. Very churchy. Nice throwaway line on Big History and the Sumerians, too. We all know that Elmer invented glue, not the Sumerians!

Posted by: Zeno | April 25, 2008 8:31 PM

He does manage to walk that fine line that a true Poe's Law candidate needs to tread, doesn't he? It's brilliant work; I think this is one of his best yet, since it perfectly parodies the circular nature of creationist arguments and "evidence". It's rare that satire achieves this Juvenalian level anymore.

Posted by: Stwriley | April 25, 2008 8:32 PM

I couldn't get more than a minute in. I hate, hate HATE people who smack their lips with every breath they take when talking.

"Well, *smack*, I posted to some evolution forums, *smack*, and the responses I got, *smack*..."

I have walked out of seminars where the speaker is smacking right into the microphone. I refuse to believe I am alone in feeling this way.

Dear everyone, but especially Ed Currant: Please pay attention to how you are saying things, particularly if speaking is a big part of your job or hobby. For fuck's sake, PLEASE pay attention.

Posted by: minimalist | April 25, 2008 8:34 PM

Gotta love the ancient laptop. Makes it seem like he's using a time machine to make the video.

It's cute, but I like the review in the Detroit Weekly better. That was some serious on-target snark!

Posted by: Scote | April 25, 2008 8:36 PM

That's just perfect.

"Sorry actual scientists!"

hahaha...

Posted by: Dan | April 25, 2008 8:37 PM

Mockery and strawman: the classic substitutes for reason used by empty minds. Historically, have been used to mischaracterize points of view by those who wish to inspire bigotry against them. Appeal only to those too ignorant and/or dogmatic to understand another point of view. Carry on.

Posted by: ungtss | April 25, 2008 8:40 PM

I think the cross might actually be duct tape.

I think the ancient laptop was a smart prop choice.

Posted by: Steve_C | April 25, 2008 8:43 PM

I just puked on my keyboard.

Sub Cruce Lumen? Minime!

Posted by: Rick Schauer | April 25, 2008 8:44 PM

I concur with #11.

Which brings me to something I've wondered since I started reading this: PZ, have you ever thought about implementing a ratings system for comments? Does Seed give you that option?

Posted by: Stephen Couchman | April 25, 2008 8:46 PM

BoS: 'Tain't a crucifix, it doesn't have the Corpus Christi* on it.

What kind of computer is that? Is it really an ancient laptop or some weird mockup of one with wheels?

"there have been some Xians on youtube who have taken him seriously, and applauded him for his unflagging defense of cretinism and IDiocy."

Or are they faking it as well? We're through the Looking Glass! I think his tone becomes a little too sarcastic at times, but the wide-eyed look is pretty genuine.

* Now there's a town I'm glad I don't live in. Not because it's a bad town, I've never been there, but because of the name. Ick.

Posted by: Rey Fox | April 25, 2008 8:49 PM

That was real slick. Great stuff. The more of this available on the interweb the more impossible it will be for the real cretins to get people to listen to their message. Eventually, we could start spreading a vicious rumour that the DI is in fact a hoax site created by some wiley geeks.

Minimalist,
I'm not being facetious when I suggest that you might have hyperacusis (the soft sound variant). Do you have a problem with people chewing as well?

Posted by: DSKS | April 25, 2008 8:51 PM

That was hilarious. I have seen his video about how masturbation is evil, but this one takes the cake. Poe's Law Strikes again! Satire really is one of the best ways to rationally refute your opponents ideas.

Posted by: heyzeuscreasetoe | April 25, 2008 8:54 PM

@ #25 How could we know DI isn't already a hoax?

Posted by: Dennis N | April 25, 2008 8:55 PM

Can't dish it out or take it, can ya, Ungt...what's with that handle, anyway? Sounds like a toilet noise.

Posted by: Rey Fox | April 25, 2008 8:56 PM

Whining about imagined persecution: a classic substitute for reason used by people whose ideas are so flimsy and ridiculous that they can't be supported on their own merit. Historically, have been used by people in the majority who wish to protect cherished beliefs from criticism from uppity minorities. Appeals only to those whose unfounded dogmas are so deeply cherished that the mere idea someone might mock or criticize them feels like unbearable persecution. Carry on.

Mischaracterization of another person's argument: Hear someone say that a particular satire merely mocks and mischaracterizes a point of view, and lacks any logical or factual merit whatsoever. Mischaracterize that statement as a persecution complex.

In fact, ignorant people misrepresent the point of view of others on all sides of every issue. Identification of that habit is not a persecution complex, but a call for people to grow up.

Posted by: ungtss | April 25, 2008 9:00 PM

Also...more in response to #15:

Mockery and strawman: the classic substitutes for reason used by empty minds.

I'd point out that watching and enjoying mockery is not the ONLY way we respond to creationist claims. In numerous threads on this site (and elsewhere), people have attempted patiently to use reason against creationist claims. It's generally quite futile as creationists really are "too ignorant and/or dogmatic to understand another point of view," but that hasn't stopped us from trying.

Sometimes, however, you need to take a break from the (admittedly not terribly intellectually taxing) debate and just have a laugh. Sure, maybe it's a bit childish and unconstructive, but as John Grier said, "You are only young once, but you can be immature for a lifetime." (Thanks to a fellow pharyngulite for posting that in the "crash the poll" thread.) Just because sometimes we sit back and have a laugh at creationists' expense doesn't mean we lack the reasonable arguments to refute their claims. It just means that sometimes, we get a little tired of throwing reason at those who are willfully blind to it.

Posted by: Etha Williams | April 25, 2008 9:04 PM

When a sad, ignorant enemy has been debunked by subtle, intelligent analysis repeatedly and their potentially meritorious views have been shown to have no potential and no merit, its ok to do some gloating.

Perhaps. But it's not okay to mischaracterize your opponents. It hardens their views, because it gives them hard, objective reason to believe that atheists either do not understand them, or deliberately choose to ignore what they are actually saying.

It's mere selection bias to characterize an entire viewpoint as the worst of those who hold it. Yes, there are wacko, ignorant creationists. There are also wacko, ignorant evolutionsts who use it to justify racial purges. So what?

Posted by: ungtss | April 25, 2008 9:06 PM

@#15 ungtss (again....I'll stop soon):

Historically, have been used to mischaracterize points of view

I'm genuinely curious: how would *you* correctly characterize the POV of ID proponents? What are their real arguments that are being mischaracterized here and in other satire videos?

Posted by: Etha Williams | April 25, 2008 9:07 PM

Is anyone else imagining Dwight Shrute when reading Ungua's comments?

"Fact: Mistyping someone's handle is the last resort of someone who doesn't want to engage a humorless prig in intellectual discussion."

Posted by: Rey Fox | April 25, 2008 9:09 PM

Amazing how Ed Current vids can weed out posters around here. He and Pat Condell are my favorites.

Posted by: Bob V | April 25, 2008 9:09 PM

"Perhaps. But it's not okay to mischaracterize your opponents."

Seeing how many people on this thread have mistaken this guy for a real Expelled proponent, I think the characterization must be spot on.

Posted by: Rey Fox | April 25, 2008 9:12 PM

Ungts.

You concern has been noted. It is bullshit but it has been noted. Now run along and defend the holocaust deniers and the flat earthists.

Posted by: Steve_C | April 25, 2008 9:13 PM

Burning strawmen shackled by angst. Reputed defenders nonetheless missing the crux of the interlocutory sarcasm. Free-style prose substituting for constructive dialog amongst the bukakke enthusiasts. Carry on.

Posted by: Duncan | April 25, 2008 9:14 PM

I'm genuinely curious: how would *you* correctly characterize the POV of ID proponents? What are their real arguments that are being mischaracterized here and in other satire videos?

There is not one such point of view. There are a spectrum of ID points of view, with a spectrum of different beliefs. There are those who believe that God intelligently engineers life through the process of evolution. There are those who believe that life on Earth is the result of terraforming. There are those who don't claim to know much at all about the designer, but leave open the possibility that one exists.

They're not all kooks.

Posted by: ungtss | April 25, 2008 9:17 PM

There is not one such point of view. There are a spectrum of ID points of view, with a spectrum of different beliefs. There are those who believe that God intelligently engineers life through the process of evolution. There are those who believe that life on Earth is the result of terraforming. There are those who don't claim to know much at all about the designer, but leave open the possibility that one exists.

They're not all kooks.

Poe?

Posted by: Nibien | April 25, 2008 9:20 PM

I love Edward Current. The only channel that comes close to that level of Poe's Law embodiment is Red State Update. Despite those guys being a regular feature on salon.com and CNN and popping up at the Democratic YouTube debate, the most rabid of neocons still insist on humping their legs.

Posted by: deerjackal | April 25, 2008 9:22 PM

@#51 ungtss --

There is not one such point of view. There are a spectrum of ID points of view, with a spectrum of different beliefs. There are those who believe that God intelligently engineers life through the process of evolution. There are those who believe that life on Earth is the result of terraforming. There are those who don't claim to know much at all about the designer, but leave open the possibility that one exists.

Fair enough, but the ones we're typically debating -- the ones who are most vocal on the internet and in the public arena, eg, the makers and fans of Expelled (who are the ones explicitly being mocked in this satire) -- are those who not only believe that maybe there is a designer, but think that this belief is scientific and should be researched and taught.

I don't see how this belief can be characterized as anything but ignorant at best.

Posted by: Etha Williams | April 25, 2008 9:22 PM

Holbach: "This insane crap is starting to effect me to the point that even a mild believer in religion is just so much fodder for my extreme hatred of all irrationality."

Dear Holbach, I'm being completely serious here. You appear to have strong emotional issues with the topic of religion that border on the unhealthy. A good percentage of your posts reveal a reflexive anger that does neither yourself nor the cause you wish to support a beneficial service. I think most people here politely ignore you because of your behavior. Please consider seeking some help in this area so we can engage with you on a calmer level.

Posted by: Duncan | April 25, 2008 9:25 PM

#25 Posted by: DSKS | April 25, 2008 8:51 PM

Minimalist,

I'm not being facetious when I suggest that you might have hyperacusis (the soft sound variant). Do you have a problem with people chewing as well?

I do. It drives me batty. I have no clue why - I'm sure my eating habits are no better. It's just one of those odd noise things that gets under my skin. I try to ignore it because I know it's petty and stupid to complain about - but dang! Can't people chew quietly...., er, um. I mean, carry on!

JBS

Posted by: john B. Sandlin | April 25, 2008 9:29 PM

Ungts:

Fine. Not all IDers are kooks. Some atheists and "evolutionists" are kooks. These are both relatively uncontroversial claims. What's your point? That satirizing the IDers who *are* kooks -- or laughing at such a satire -- is to paint all IDers with broad kook-strokes? No, it's just a bit of light-hearted fun at the expense of those who really are kooks. The fact that some IDers are not is completely irrelevant. Perhaps your point is that it's immature? Indeed, in order to be mature, one must be very, very solemn.

Yeesh. Relax, and let us have a laugh at some harmless fun.

Posted by: Avekid | April 25, 2008 9:31 PM

Satire yes, but it could easily have been the Planet Killer, Stein, and so many others. We know that there are real videos of real creos spouting this crap to real deranged audiences. The satire is not so much lost on me as is the real portent of its content to real wackos who do believe this insanity and perhaps take this video as the real stuff, and as someone has noted, satire will be lost on them. I need a relief. I'm going to purge my brain of this portentious satire and watch Volume 2 of W C Fields who has a different brand of satire to offer without pissing me off, even in jest. I quoted this by W C the other day and there is definitely no satire intentioned.
"Wouldn't it be terrible if I quoted some reliable statistics which prove that more people are driven insane through religious hysteria than by drinking alcohol?"
The statistics are true W C; believe me!

Posted by: Holbach | April 25, 2008 9:31 PM

I just wanted to clear the confusion, because there is an important distinction. Mainly, theistic evolution means evolution with God never conflicting with science. Its a concession by religion that allows scientists and teachers to do their jobs. ID is the opposite, having God step in at certain points to work miracles. Theistic evolution lets people step away from the protest line and teach children science, and ID leads to people wanting Of Pandas and People as the de facto source of children's knowledge.

Posted by: Dennis N | April 25, 2008 9:34 PM

Watching the educational video was, my friends, nearly as enjoyable as the olives accompanying my Friday night martini. Gin, of course. Thank you PZ for lifting my spirits...the other type...I seem to be handling the liquid type just fine.

Posted by: JustPlainAl | April 25, 2008 9:42 PM

Who is this MORON? Why give him a forum. He mneed an enama.

Posted by: John | April 25, 2008 9:45 PM

@#67 Dennis N

Mainly, theistic evolution means evolution with God never conflicting with science...ID is the opposite, having God step in at certain points to work miracles.

Well put. IOW, I'd classify ID as "trying to twist science to fit religion," whereas TE is "trying to twist religion to try to fit science." Since in my view religion is pretty twisted as it is, I have much less of a problem with the latter than the former :).

One of the big theistic evolution arguments is that the Genesis story is not literal, but is a pre-scientific era allegory for the creation of the universe, earth, and life over the period of billions of years (rather than the literal 6 days described in Genesis). (I believe this argument was used famously in the Scopes Monkey Trial, at least if my Inherit the Wind-based knowledge of the trial is correct.)

Personally I think this sounds like a stretch, but to my knowledge theistic evolutionists have never asked that this interpretation be taught in schools, so I'm fairly apathetic about it.

Heck, if ID'ers were just saying that they thought that life was irreducibly complex, and they saw evidence of design and divine intervention in the process of evolution, I wouldn't really care that much. It's the fact that they want these irrational views to infiltrate our scientific education and research institutions that bothers me.

Posted by: Etha Williams | April 25, 2008 9:48 PM

John. Sarcasm? If not, watch again.

Anything about "Big History" give it away?

Posted by: Steve_C | April 25, 2008 9:51 PM

@#72 Ichthyic --

We've asked countless times for the so called "intelligent" ID supporters to even define their concept to the point of a testable hypothesis. Hell, the Templeton Foundation (you know who they are, right?) even offered them a fucking grant to do so, if they would but apply.

And that's not even mentioning all the private funding the DI has given ID 'researchers' to perform experiments to demonstrate ID. Strangely, despite all this funding and alleged, no evidence has emerged.

Better start praying harder....

ID'ers are trying to sneak their superstitions into the scientific arena, but they have absolutely no understanding of or respect for the scientific method. Ben Stein actually probably put it best, in an interview with Christianity Today: "Anyway, I couldn't give a [profanity] whether a person calls himself a scientist."

[[The "profanity" censor was put in by CT, not me.]]

Posted by: Etha Williams | April 25, 2008 9:54 PM

"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."

Giordano Bruno (Il Nolano) 1548 to 1600
Victim of the Venice and Roman Inquisitions

Posted by: Angel Rose Young | April 25, 2008 9:55 PM

Edit to my post #80:

When I wrote "People who simultaneously understand & accept the scientific method and have religious faith don't seem to be ignoring everything," I actually meant "People who simultaneously understand & accept the scientific method and have religious faith don't seem to be ignoring anything" (correction in bold).

Freudian slip?

Posted by: Etha Williams | April 25, 2008 10:03 PM

No, to ignore everything, you'd have to be a young earther.

Posted by: Dennis N | April 25, 2008 10:05 PM

Etha,
We are in no position to comment on faith. We are far to biased.
Fight ignorance and faith will sort itself out.

Posted by: ThirdMonkey | April 25, 2008 10:08 PM

Beautiful!

Well done!

Posted by: Anon | April 25, 2008 10:13 PM

True, but I think many on this blog would argue that faith is ignorance.

I have no problem with faith as a philosophical concept.

However, I've never met ANYBODY who actually had it.

In fact, all religious people I've ever met in my whole 43 years of living have required some material justification for their faith (even unto seeing Jebus in a coffee cake).

Not saying it isn't possible to have real faith in something, I just have concluded that if it exists, it's far too rare to concern oneself about.

no, ID does not arise from faith. It arises from LACK of faith. It's supported by those who fear (really KNOW) that they lack faith, and are looking for some crutch to utilize in support of a faith that doesn't exist.

It's nothing but a rationalization formed to support a delusion, and utilized as a tool to motivate the faithless and fearful.

In short, it's absolutely pathetic. It's what's beyond "turtles all the way down".

Posted by: Ichthyic | April 25, 2008 10:17 PM