…and this is a 
Roger Ebert: hacked or poor satire?
Category: Creationism • Weirdness
Posted on: September 22, 2008 4:42 PM, by PZ Myers
There is a very peculiar article at Roger Ebert's movie review site. It may not last long, so I've put a copy below the fold. It's a straight-faced recitation of creationist claims, all nonsensical, all typical, presented as if they were Ebert's opinion. It could be an exercise in Poe's Law, I suppose, or it could be the consequence of a little web hacking.
Questions and answers on Creationism, which should be discussed in schools as an alternative to the theory of evolution:
Q. When was the earth created?
A. Archbishop James Usher, working out a chronology from the Bible, calculated in 1654 that the earth was created on the night of October 23, 4004 B.C. Other timetables reach back as far as 10,000 years.
Q. What about oil and coal, which seem to have been generated from ancient forests millions of years ago?
A. They are evidence of a Great Flood about 4,400 years ago, which laid down all the layers of sediment at once. They are nowhere near as old as evolutionists and archeologists say. A fossil claimed to be 200 million years old, found in Nevada in 1917, shows a shoe print. [See photograph]
Q. What about bones representing such species as Cro-Magnon Man and Neanderthal Man?
A. Created at the same time as man. They did not survive. In fact, all surviving species and many others were created fully formed at the same time. At that moment they were of various ages and in varying degrees of health. Some individuals died an instant later, others within seconds, minutes or hours.
Q. Were there ice ages lasting millions of years?
A. No, but a recent and catastrophic Ice Epoch.
Q. Did the Colorado River carve out the mile-deep Grand Canyon over eons?
A. It was the result of Ice Epochs, the Great Flood and other catastrophes within the last 64 to 100 centuries.
Q. Was there a Noah, and did he have an Ark?
A. Certainly. There are many unverified reports of a massive wooden vessel on Mount Ararat. The Arc contained eight people, from whom we are all descended. It also contained two of each kind of animal. Since living species were obviously not created through an evolutionary process, every surviving land-based mammal species (about 5,400) had both ancestors on the Arc.
Q: What about dinosaurs?
A. They walked the earth at the same time as man, but were wiped out by the Flood, whose turbulence buried their bones in non-sequential sediments.
Q. What did the creatures on the Ark eat?
A. Food on board, fish, and possibly trapped sea birds.
Q. How long did the Great Flood last?
A. We know that Noah was 600 years, two months and 17 days old when he sailed. Using that as a starting point and counting forward, Genesis tells us it lasted for 40, 150, 253, 314 or 370 days.
Q. Since the earth was completely covered, even to the highest mountains, where did the waters go?
A. This is explained in Psalm 104, verses 6 and 7: "Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away."
Q. What about such cosmic phenomena as the rings of Saturn?
A. Evidence of a catastrophic collision between Saturn and another object within the same 10,000-year span.
Q. Why would God create such an absurd creature as a moose?
A. In charity, we must observe that the moose probably does not seem absurd to itself.
So, you be the judge.
Comments
Posted by: Andrew Campbell | September 22, 2008 4:49 PM
Hrmm... I thought I read somewhere that Ebert was an atheist
Posted by: Hedgefundguy | September 22, 2008 4:49 PM
Ebert was quite an entertaining reviewer, his terminal illness must be getting worse. No other way to justify this wackiness, especially "..Some individuals died an instant later, others within seconds, minutes or hours."
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 22, 2008 4:50 PM
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: bootsy | September 22, 2008 4:50 PM
Yep. That's weird. Can't but imagine it's some weird hack, from what I remember of Ebert. (He didn't even bother to review Expelled.) Who woulda' thunk creationists could use computers, with their monkey hands and all.
Posted by: tristero | September 22, 2008 4:50 PM
It truly is hard to believe these are Ebert's views. I've read some of his books. This doesn't sound like him at all.
Posted by: Geral | September 22, 2008 4:51 PM
I really want to say, for his sake, it was hacked on there. There is no reason whatsoever for Ebert to put his personal opinions up there and it seems to be just randomly up on his page.
However, the very fact it hasn't been removed yet AND I did a Google search for his answers and no exact results came up.
Therefore,I think he can judge movies fine but he can't judge science with a damn.
Posted by: Greg Esres | September 22, 2008 4:51 PM
I read Ebert's reviews all the time and I would be very surprised to find he was a creationist. He's very liberal otherwise, and his wife is black, something you wouldn't expect from a right wing religious nut.
Posted by: pharma girl | September 22, 2008 4:54 PM
He considers himself an agnostic, I believe.
Posted by: Randy | September 22, 2008 4:54 PM
For what this is worth, my knee-jerk opinion, (which, of course, is all we liberal atheists have - am I right fellas?), is "I call bullshit."
It's so wacky it can't be real.
Of course, when I'm proved wrong I'll swear I never said this.
Posted by: Martin | September 22, 2008 4:55 PM
Folks, this is definitely a hack. And I bet it's by a creationist pissed off at the fact that in the website's letter column, Ebert responded to a reader who asked if he was "too politically correct" to review Expelled by saying, "Last I heard, it wasn't politically correct to agree with Darwin. It's more like, oh, intelligent." Ebert, while Catholic, accepts evolution, fear not.
Posted by: Robert | September 22, 2008 4:57 PM
Ebert's three-year old post http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050328/COMMENTARY/503280301
clearly shows Ebert is not a creationist.
Posted by: marty | September 22, 2008 4:57 PM
It has to be a hack. This is a real quote from Roger Ebert:
"An industry has grown up around the "science" supporting the "argument for intelligent design." It refuses the possibility that evolution itself is the most elegant and plausible argument for those who wish to believe in intelligent design. If you are interested, you might want to go to www.talkorigins.org, where the errors of creationist science are patiently explained."
That was taken from a movie review for "Job vs. the Volcano" he did in 2005. Read the entire review here:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050328/COMMENTARY/503280301
Posted by: marty | September 22, 2008 4:59 PM
Great minds, Robert. Great minds.
Posted by: bootsy | September 22, 2008 4:59 PM
Has anyone sent the site administrator an email about their site being hacked? They might not check every entry...
Posted by: Danio | September 22, 2008 5:01 PM
This is so inconsistent with Ebert's writing style, not to mention what I know of his views on religion/politics, etc. His review of 'March of the Penguins', e.g. makes a number of overt references to natural selection, Darwin, etc.
It seems highly unlikely that these creationist Q&As are really his words.
Posted by: Jason S | September 22, 2008 5:04 PM
According to Wikipedia he's an agnostic - "However, Ebert identifies himself as an agnostic." - a claim sourced to http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/December-2005/A-Life-in-the-Movies/index.php?cp=2&si=1#artanc
Posted by: patrickhenry | September 22, 2008 5:04 PM
Darn! His brilliant arguments had me convinced!
Posted by: JoshL | September 22, 2008 5:06 PM
Hacked, no satire.
Posted by: Matt7895 | September 22, 2008 5:06 PM
Roger Ebert is most definitely NOT a creationist.
In a Q&A on his official website, he was asked why he did not bother to review 'Expelled'.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... 80311/1023
"Movie Answer Man
BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC / May 8, 2008
Q. Readers want to know if the Movie Answer Man is too PC to review "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?
Ruddy Spencer, Tucson, Ariz.
A. The last I heard, it is not considered Politically Correct to agree with Darwin. I think it is more like, oh, intelligent."
Incidentally, Ebert is not an atheist either, he's Catholic. But I think he is more of a Catholic agnostic. He follows Catholic morality and traditions, but I don't think he actually believes in god.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | September 22, 2008 5:06 PM
Yeah, I don't think this is real at all. I can swear I heard somewhere he ripped Expelled a new one. The links posted above also provide some proof.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | September 22, 2008 5:08 PM
I think it has to be either a hack, or a soon to be fired webmaster.
Posted by: DamianPL | September 22, 2008 5:08 PM
It must be hacked or something. I believe these are his views:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050328/COMMENTARY/503280301
Posted by: tsg | September 22, 2008 5:09 PM
It looks as though the "By Roger Ebert" byline is a default unless something else is there. From the page source:
<!--if category is glossary or critical debate, don't print byline or pubdate, otherwise, print the byline that's there (or BY ROGER EBERT if it's not.)-->
Perhaps someone with better html skills can confirm.
Posted by: ThirdMonkey | September 22, 2008 5:12 PM
It is most certainly a hack.
A quick look at his other commentary articles makes it clear that this one does not follow his normal format nor does it match his normal writing styles.
For one, Ebert would have been thorough enough to describe the situation of the Q&A, who the interviewer was, etc.
By the way, if you look at some of his recent commentaries you'll see that a complete copy of Metropolis has been found!!! OMG!!!
Posted by: B8ovin | September 22, 2008 5:15 PM
This is definitely Poe. By answering these questions precisely like Creationists he is showing his disdain for them. If he had posted the questions and given intelligent answers he would be preaching to the choir. By doing it this way he communicates to the undecideds exactly how ridiculous teaching ID or creationism is. In fact, precisely because he frames the exercise as "Questions and answers on Creationism, which should be discussed in schools as an alternative to the theory of evolution:" he is mocking the whole idea by showing the silliness.
Posted by: Metro | September 22, 2008 5:16 PM
Well we loved the creative story, and the willingness to suspend disbelief. But overall we had to give this one two thumbs down.
Posted by: Holbach | September 22, 2008 5:16 PM
I have been reading Ebert for years and he has given me no indication of a opinion or mind gone wrong with religious overtones. It appears to be a put up job by the religious scum to discredit his character. Good old religion, always ready and willing to crap on anything opposed to their mental quackery.
Posted by: andyo | September 22, 2008 5:18 PM
At least it's good to know Man wore Timberlands when walking with the dinosaurs.
Posted by: bootsy | September 22, 2008 5:18 PM
Sent a message to the webmaster, citing Roger's views on "Expelled" as reason to be suspicous of hacking.
(Still think the physics of using computers and the physics of teh Bible do not match up, meaning that whatever creationist who hacked this page has just consigned themselves to eternal torment.)
Posted by: SidBB | September 22, 2008 5:19 PM
It's definitely a bit of satire. I've seen Ebert write sly little things like this in the past with no commentary or explanation. Check out this article, seemingly a transcript of an MSNBC interview with "Ann Coultist". The creationism article immediately reminded me of this. Relax, it's just a joke.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070703/COMMENTARY/70703001
Posted by: tsg | September 22, 2008 5:19 PM
The image of the fossil also appears to be the only image on the page not hosted on rogerebert.suntimes.com.
Posted by: abeja | September 22, 2008 5:21 PM
Maybe he's being held hostage by one of those oh-so-peaceful creationists and was forced to write that crap.
Probably not, but I agree with the other comments here that it certainly doesn't sound like him at all.
Posted by: Qwerty | September 22, 2008 5:21 PM
I agree with the thought that Ebert was hacked, but I like the below Q and A. If you consider that YECers' think the earth is 6,000 and Noah lived to the ripe age of 600; then, it's amazing to think one person lived for 10% of the earth's existence if you buy into a young earth! No wonder PZ thinks these people are Wackaloons!
Q. How long did the Great Flood last?
A. We know that Noah was 600 years, two months and 17 days old when he sailed. Using that as a starting point and counting forward, Genesis tells us it lasted for 40, 150, 253, 314 or 370 days.
Posted by: Moses | September 22, 2008 5:22 PM
He's a Catholic. He's even criticized films for not treating his faith the way he thinks it should be treated.
Posted by: noncarborundum | September 22, 2008 5:22 PM
Satire.
I don't think there's any other way to explain this:
Posted by: Travis McDermott | September 22, 2008 5:22 PM
Perhaps it has something to do with the title of his latest "Great Movie" entry:
Adaptation (R) (2002)
Evolution is God's intelligent design
Posted by: lylebot | September 22, 2008 5:23 PM
I agree with B8ovin; this is intentional and an example of Poe's Law. He's reciting all the creationist claims in the most direct possible way. The overall effect is to show just how ridiculous their answers to these questions are. To me the disdain for creationism is palpable.
Posted by: bootsy | September 22, 2008 5:24 PM
All right, I will feel dumb if it's a joke, but I still think he would've provided a few more clues, besides just the closing bit about the moose. You'll notice in that Ann Coultist and Chris Curveball joke he had a lot of jokey details.
(I'm not saying creationism isn't hilariously stupid even without elaboration, btw.)
Posted by: HidariMak | September 22, 2008 5:25 PM
For those who skipped the earlier posts for brevity sake, check out Glen Davidson's excellent post (#3). It shows clearly that his page was simply hacked, and why Ebert was targeted.
I saw Ebert's earlier slamming of 9/11 conspiracy nuts in his letters section, which showed him to be too rational to be a creationalist. The latest "commentary by Ebert" is nothing other than creationalists showing how dishonest and desperate they can be. And I doubt that any of them will even mention the hack, outside of the "we're right because Ebert agrees with us" approach.
Posted by: Hael | September 22, 2008 5:27 PM
Are you all serious? That is so blatantly satire. You people need to take a break from the internet. You've been talking to too many creationists.
Posted by: Cody | September 22, 2008 5:27 PM
"There are many unverified reports of a massive wooden vessel on Mount Ararat."
Read it again. That line alone makes me believe it's a poe, by slipping in the un-.
Posted by: Moses | September 22, 2008 5:29 PM
It's got to be satire:
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 22, 2008 5:30 PM
OT: 'Luther Decade' kicks off in Wittenberg, Germany
Apparently they're celebrating the arrival at Wittenberg of the man who said, "But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore.."
Posted by: ThirdMonkey | September 22, 2008 5:30 PM
I've looked over the HTML. The image is hosted from the same location as the images in the other commentaries and the HTML of the content is consistant with the others as well. If this was a hack it was by someone who gained access to the Sun Times content management system.
If this wasn't a hack, then someone needs to explain Poe to Ebert so that he will know to include a ';)' next time...
Posted by: Brian D | September 22, 2008 5:31 PM
I love the answer where this hacker quotes Psalm 104. It reminds me very much of a Penny Arcade Twisp & Catsby story.
"Where did the waters go, Twisp?"
"Away."
I honestly don't know which is more surreal.
Posted by: Rob Johnson | September 22, 2008 5:31 PM
i think the moose comment is probably the giveaway. it's almost douglas adamsian. ;)
Posted by: PeteK | September 22, 2008 5:33 PM
Sounds like the "Hovind theory" to me..
Posted by: Travis McDermott | September 22, 2008 5:34 PM
Also found this:
http://tinyurl.com/3lrsyy
Do a search for "creationism."
Seems to be an unfortunate bad joke.
Posted by: noncarborundum | September 22, 2008 5:35 PM
I do think that the answer about the length of the flood is a fairly obvious clue. He's constrasting the extreme precision of Noah's age (within 5/10,000 of a percent) with the extreme imprecision of the flood chronology itself.
I don't think a serious creationist would do such a thing, even out of stupidity.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | September 22, 2008 5:35 PM
Ebert has been a consistent and vibrant voice for science and reason and for humanistic values. I consider him a very trustworthy voice and if this is something he had actually posted, I would assume that his illness had gotten the better of him. That junk does not reflect what I've seem him write over the past 20 years in the least.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | September 22, 2008 5:44 PM
You know, I'm sure I've seen this particular list before; it's circulating as a chain email IIRC...
So I'm going for "hacked" (or, I should say, "cracked"). Somebody managed to put this up on the site after copy&pasting it from somewhere.
Posted by: Jared | September 22, 2008 5:44 PM
I vote this one is Poe's Law in action...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 22, 2008 5:45 PM
Erm, no... no. Each ice age lasts a couple of tens of thousands of years.
Obvious Poe.
As I just said.
And what is that reply?
Posted by: scooter | September 22, 2008 5:45 PM
I perceived a satirical subtext on my reading.
and
I think Roger is having a little fun
Posted by: Pat McComb | September 22, 2008 5:55 PM
This looks like Ebert's pulling a prank. The final line about the moose sounds like him.
Maybe he's preparing us for his upcoming review of "Religulous."
Posted by: Chris Schoen | September 22, 2008 5:57 PM
Take a breath, guys. This is obvious satire, and it's not all that subtle.
Posted by: zer0 | September 22, 2008 6:05 PM
Satire. Actually, by just laying out all the creationist answers like that, he succeeds in showing how inane they are. That's pure win Roger!
Posted by: Doo Shabag | September 22, 2008 6:14 PM
As someone pointed out, the answer to the question about the length of the flood is:
"Genesis tells us it lasted for 40, 150, 253, 314 or 370 days."
He is obviously pointing out that the Bible is self-contradictory.
Posted by: Kerry Maxwell | September 22, 2008 6:20 PM
A Siskel & Ebert bitch fight devolves into hilarious riffing on WASPs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmnYCSwt2Js
Posted by: Zombie | September 22, 2008 6:22 PM
I kinda like the Moose answer...
Posted by: Seb | September 22, 2008 6:27 PM
Sounds like no one bothered to read the article Glen D quoted & linked to in comment #3 -- If that's the case, you should go and read it now, it pretty much answers the question.
Posted by: Cujo359 | September 22, 2008 6:28 PM
Looks like it was hacked to me. Many of those sentences are just too clumsy to have been written by Ebert. Read his review of Ghost Town by way of comparison.
There's an entry for Ebert on the Celebrity Atheists site. They put him in the Ambiguous category.
Posted by: The Chemist | September 22, 2008 6:30 PM
Are you not familiar with what he does for a living?[/facetious]
That said, I REALLY doubt it's him. Like others have noted, if you read his articles, books, or even just watch him on TV, it doesn't sound like him. It's not his style. He's dynamic and direct, not encyclopedic and monotonous.
The reason it's probably still up is that he may not be much for computers. He's, well- old. I think he's used to fire-and-forget, and probably rarely checks his own website. Remember that it's not a blog, there is no comments section (that I can see).
I throw my hat in for the "massive hack" idea.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | September 22, 2008 6:31 PM
Pat McComb #55:
"Maybe he's preparing us for his upcoming review of "Religulous."
It might BE the review for "Religulous."
Posted by: Aphrodine | September 22, 2008 6:32 PM
While I think that this particular article is completely fabricated, the following is actually believed by creationists:
----------
Q. Did the Colorado River carve out the mile-deep Grand Canyon over eons?
A. It was the result of Ice Epochs, the Great Flood and other catastrophes within the last 64 to 100 centuries.
----------
"The Grand Canyon could have been formed in FIVE MINUTES!" -- VenomFangX
You can hear it for yourself here: http://www.youtube.com/user/venomfangx?ob=4
If watching a creationist videoblog makes you want to claw your own brain out, then you can hear it second hand here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY
Posted by: Cujo359 | September 22, 2008 6:37 PM
Read Eberts' review of Star Trek: Nemesis for an idea of how he writes when he wants to make a satirical point.
Posted by: Larry Ayers | September 22, 2008 6:40 PM
"So what's the turtle standing on?"
"It's turtles all the way down!"
This is an apocryphal story originally attributed to a conversation between Thomas Huxley and an unidentified old woman, as I remember.
Posted by: bRODIE | September 22, 2008 6:46 PM
At least this part seems true:
"we must observe that the moose probably does not seem absurd to itself."
Posted by: Pat McComb | September 22, 2008 6:52 PM
Cujo359 #66
Thanks for the link. That was a hoot!
Posted by: rhr | September 22, 2008 6:53 PM
Ebert obviously wrote this as anit-creationist satire, but he kind of failed to make it outlandish enough. Everything he says is completely ridiculous, but real creationists say such ridiculous things every day. You really can't out-crazy them. It's kind of sad.
Posted by: spyderkl | September 22, 2008 6:57 PM
It kind of raised my eyebrows, I'll admit, until I read it the second time. The question about the moose clinched it - definitely satire.
#70: I agree - he should have (could have) made it weirder.
Posted by: Jason | September 22, 2008 6:57 PM
#70: Hence, Poe's Law.
Posted by: Steve Ulven | September 22, 2008 7:03 PM
I don't know what's going on here. As far as I know, Roger Ebert is agnostic.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | September 22, 2008 7:10 PM
OT: PollCrash!
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia:
Should Catholic hospitals be forced to comply with the new abortion laws?
(Victorian state government is close to passing a law to make abortions legal)
Archbishop Hart : "Catholic hospitals cannot be part of any abortion. That has to be respected in the community..."
Link
(Reason seems to be prevailing at 66% Yes at the moment, but a few extra votes wouldn't hurt, surely?)
Posted by: ryanm | September 22, 2008 7:18 PM
Satire. The ambiguity of the number of days the flood was on the earth gives it away. Creationists/literalists would never accept such wishy-washiness.
Posted by: SEF | September 22, 2008 7:30 PM
I don't know the Roger Ebert person but the Q&A stuff reads like satire, not genuine creationist answers, by deliberately drawing attention to the flaws in such answers within the answers themselves. It was perhaps misguided satire but definitely satire. Actual creationist scholarship simply isn't that good (ie they are generally incapable even of noticing the conflicting data when attempting to glean answers from their holy books, let alone given to waving it around).
Posted by: BobC | September 22, 2008 7:31 PM
Of course Ebert is not a brain-dead creationist.
The link provided in #11 & #12 was interesting:
IMAX theaters in several Southern cities have decided not to show a film on volcanoes out of concern that its references to evolution might offend those with fundamental religious beliefs. -- Associated Press
Ebert wrote "Not even a single protester needed to appear before the chilling effect of faith-based intolerance was felt."
Notice this was only a problem in the Bible belt. This is more evidence for the idea that Christians are scum and are good for nothing but slowing down human progress.
The fundamentalist assholes need the moderate Christians, so it's fair to say the worthless Christian death cult has to go. Some way must be found to eradicate all Christian stupidity.
Posted by: BobC | September 22, 2008 7:38 PM
Roger Ebert also wrote: There is no conflict between a belief in Darwinism and a belief in God as the creator of the universe. Many scientists have no trouble with the idea that God was the creator of all that is. In evolution, they think they see the elegant way by which he caused suns and planets to form, matter to interact, and life to come into being; that over some 4 billion years, the Earth and the creatures on it gradually evolved into the world we occupy today.
I don't know if Ebert really believes this or if he is just sucking up to religious idiots. Ebert is imagining a sky fairy who lets nature do all the creating. That's nice, but then what the heck is Mr. God needed for? Why bother believing in a worthless supernatural creature? I'm glad Ebert supports modern science, but why stick God in there? That's just plain childish.
Posted by: scooter | September 22, 2008 7:41 PM
Thanks Kerry @ 59
great clip
Posted by: Spinoza | September 22, 2008 7:42 PM
I didn't read the preceding comments thoroughly enough to see whether anyone had said this already but this is interesting:
I seem to recall reading somewhere that because there is only so much oxygen to go around, there can only be so many oxygen utilizing organisms on the planet at any given time... and this restricts the size and oxygen consumption and numbers of all extant species necessarily... the idea that EVERY species that has ever existed was around at the same time seems to contradict this directly, unless someone wants to calculate out how many of each species it would be possible to have exist on the earth in 4004 BC with the relevant amount of atmospheric and ocean oxygen levels... and then argue that that's how many we started with, or something.
Just way too ridiculous to even begin to consider seriously, for me anyway.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | September 22, 2008 7:53 PM
"Arc" and "Ark" in the same piece?
I'm sure I've read that comment about the moose somewhere, probably way back when computers had doors, internal hallways, and blinkenlights.
Posted by: Bryman | September 22, 2008 7:57 PM
Could this be a clever way of giving a big "thumbs up" to Bill Mahers new movie Religulous?
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | September 22, 2008 8:03 PM
To the best of my knowledge Ebert has repeatedly lamented the demise of irony. Just an educated guess but I would vote satire rather than hack.
This is also likely a sly put down to the Palin lunatic. She has mentioned a "human footprint within a dinosaur footprint" as proof of coexistence to a named source in an article about her in salon.com. Leading with a big picture of the hoax in question looks like a big neon sign flashing "satire" to me. I think Ebert has outdone himself this time.
Posted by: bunnycatch3r | September 22, 2008 8:08 PM
@65 I'm a Thunderf00t fan myself.
His "Why do people laugh at Creationsist" series is as informative as it is entertaining.
Posted by: tim | September 22, 2008 8:24 PM
@3 nails it. As one of the volunteers for that particular conference, I can say without a doubt that Roger's is a voice that comes out loud and clear against creationism and ID in all forms.
One of my favorite Roger Ebert comments about ID can be summed up as (and I'm broadly paraphrasing) "just because you don't understand how one creature evolves into another doesn't mean that God had to do it. It just means that you're stupid."
Posted by: bk | September 22, 2008 9:09 PM
Roger has spent more time writing about things other than moview since he retired.
He should stick to movies.
Posted by: daveb | September 22, 2008 9:23 PM
"Questions and answers on Creationism, which should be discussed in schools as an alternative to the theory of evolution:"
I think the "which should be discussed in schools" bit is a giveaway. Like someone already said, he's answering the questions exactly like a creationist to expose the stupidity of their views.
Posted by: jeremy | September 22, 2008 9:25 PM
It's foolish to think that the hacker in question was a creationist. It's no doubt, just some kid who thought it would be hilarious. Hackers are rarely motivated by political or ideological reasons.
Posted by: JicamaEater | September 22, 2008 9:29 PM
For quite a while I've considered Ebert one of the smarter people on the planet, having seen him speak several time and read a lot of what he's written. Regardless of what the story here is (and he can't be earnestly pushing these views), the Psalms quote is pretty funny.
Posted by: Stwriley | September 22, 2008 9:53 PM
Ebert has been very critical of Palin in several articles. It's my guess that this is another piece in that line, but using a satirical take on her creationism as the hook for a follow-up on her religious nuttery.
It's the moose line that gives the whole thing away. That's the ;) for his Poe.
Posted by: Gregory Kusnick | September 22, 2008 9:57 PM
Isn't "obvious Poe" an oxymoron?
Posted by: Chris A. | September 22, 2008 10:00 PM
It's Mr. Ebert's satire
Someone should tell him about Poe's law
Posted by: Michael Kremer | September 22, 2008 10:42 PM
Seems to me the shoe is a dead give-away that this is satire.
Posted by: Kel | September 22, 2008 10:47 PM
The text in italics was a dead giveaway this was a joke.