301. Comment #152279 by Dr Benway on March 30, 2008 at 3:40 pm

It is so typical of some people here, religion is only about making truth claims, love is "just" electro-chemistry; art is only about its "message" and whether it is "with us or against us"

Of course religion is more than truth claims. But it's the bogus truth claims that have to stop. The other stuff can go on.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

302. Comment #152285 by kaeru on March 30, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Comment #152274 by Bonzai

love is "just" electro-chemistry

Waitwaitwait. This one doesn't fit in. Reduction is not dismissal, and I have yet to see anyone dismiss love. I'm with you in re art.

Other Comments by kaeru

303. Comment #152291 by Nova on March 30, 2008 at 4:02 pm

ThoughtsonCommonToad: Some may have pointed this out already but this is promotion for expelled. The "machine" is the machine that expels scientists who question Darwinian natural selection.
TAKE A LOOK AT THIS SCREENSHOT





ficklefiend: Hmm, that Expelled logo does seem very prominent




That is not the real Expelled logo. The real one has the 'x' spray painted on, it's on their website if you want to check.

Other Comments by Nova

304. Comment #152293 by F1ken on March 30, 2008 at 4:04 pm

FYI: Actually it was Laertes who threatened to kill Hamlet in the church.

Other Comments by F1ken

305. Comment #152301 by Dr Benway on March 30, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Postmodernism isn't popular 'round these parts. But some pomo art is quite good. Here's an example from Philip Roth's American Pastoral:

You fight your superficiality, your shallowness, so as to try to come at people without unreal expectations, without an overload of bias or hope or arrogance, as untanklike as you can be, sans cannon and machine guns and steel plating half a foot thick; you come at them unmenacingly on your own ten toes instead of tearing up the turf with your caterpillar treads, take them on with an open mind, as equals, man to man, as we used to say, and yet you never fail to get them wrong. You might as well have the brain of a tank. You get them wrong before you meet them, while you're anticipating meeting them; you get them wrong while you're with them; and then you go home to tell somebody else about the meeting and you get them all wrong again. Since the same generally goes for them with you, the whole thing is really a dazzling illusion. ... The fact remains that getting people right is not what living is all about anyway. It's getting them wrong that is living, getting them wrong and wrong and wrong and then, on careful reconsideration, getting them wrong again. That's how we know we're alive: we're wrong. Maybe the best thing would be to forget being right or wrong about people and just go along for the ride. But if you can do that -- well, lucky you.

And another classic: Love's a two-way dream

Other Comments by Dr Benway

306. Comment #152302 by whig on March 30, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Thanks Alexander on post #301,

Now that you mention it, I remember that you're right that Aristotle did posit the unmoved mover. I was reacting more against their use of the Plato image (since reading Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies, I've taken a dislike towards Plato, more for his politics than metaphysics). On that, while we might dislike Aquinas for his Five Proofs, which are still thrown our way, even after Hume showed what's wrong with them philosophically, and the big bang and evolution theories what's wrong with them in fact, but he did reintroduce the study of Aristotle. It might have been in a Christianized form, which was the only way it coud have been then, but that might have brought reason back a century earlier than otherwise.

Edit: Continuing my own "their use of Raphael" tangent, they used the image of Aristotle for Democritus.

Back to the video, I think their main aim was humor, to have fun. If I were caricaturing Hitchens I woud probably reference his fondness for whiskey.

Will we all find out in a few days anyway who was right, when the producers make another video, or tell us where they stand? (I'm betting anti-ID)

Other Comments by whig

307. Comment #152303 by rejohnsonil on March 30, 2008 at 4:35 pm

have to say i'm pretty saddened at how closed minded so many of a group of supposedly open-minded folks are. making such harsh condescending judgments on a fairly affectionate (if not in your exact taste) parody just leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

if you don't get it that's absolutely fine, but try not to be so condescending and tight-arsed about it. the 24 year old guy, alexander, sounds like my dad and i'm 36.

there are all types of art, culture, and people out there. we should appreciate it all--it's a short life and anyone who takes the time to make an anthemic positive statement about science, which has a chance of reaching hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions), should at a minimum be respected.

Other Comments by rejohnsonil

308. Comment #152307 by kaeru on March 30, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Re Comment #152301 by Dr Benway:

I'm always reflexively defending postⁿ-modernism as a concept, but after reading a whole book full of this kind of wisdom I would probably feel a lot dumber than before -- and hopelessly modern.

Other Comments by kaeru

309. Comment #152311 by Lil_Xunzian on March 30, 2008 at 4:58 pm

whig,

If you want to get at an Aristotle who isn't Christianized, don't read analytic accounts of him, they're all very much in that spirit, but without knowing it. Try to understand Aristotle through the lens of a 20th century German, like Heidegger or Gadamer, and you might get at a more authentic sense of what Aristotle is trying to do. I'm taking philosophy of biology right now and that's the approach to Aristotle we're taking in the course, it's much better than the analytic accounts I received as an undergrad. It also helps to know your Greek!

As far as closed societies go, there's a great article by Henry Rosemont concerning Xunzi's closed society and how he withstands Popper's critique.

Anyway, Aquinas totally garbles Aristotle and I think it's done a great disservice to the great philosopher.

Final thought: I guess the word I would choose to summarise the terrible flash animation is "rude."

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

310. Comment #152315 by whig on March 30, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Thanks. As you can tell, I'm only self-informed when it comes to philosophy, but in as much as I hope to continue to teach myself, I'll take some of your advice.

Other Comments by whig

311. Comment #152317 by Lil_Xunzian on March 30, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Looking back, I'm in complete agreement with clearthinker. I think the meaning of this film is becoming a bit more perspicuous.

Alex

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

312. Comment #152319 by AfraidToDie on March 30, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Did you write the book of love, and do you have faith in God above?
If the Bible tells you so
Now do you believe in rock and roll, can music save your moral soul and
Can you teach me how to dance real slow?

Anybody remember this, and all the discussion about what it meant? There are parallels in that it is all about what you read into it. Mabe Don McLean knows what it means?

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

313. Comment #152320 by Frankus1122 on March 30, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Well it is interesting to see so much divergent opinion about the intentions and meaning of the video posted yesterday.

Imagine if it were a book, or several books assembled over hundreds of years, hundreds of years ago. How many interpretations would there be for something like that? How could you tell what the true meaning was? Perhaps some of it is to be taken literally while other parts are merely metaphorical. But how could you tell?

I suppose if that kind of a book were to be written and inspired by God then it would be clear.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

314. Comment #152325 by corruptmemory on March 30, 2008 at 5:28 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNwJZe8HtOE
Lyrics:
http://www.mchawking.com/includes/lyrics/creationists_lyrics.php

Better yet, but there is no music or videos I could find is Mc Frontalot's "Origin of Species":

http://www.frontalot.com/index.php/?page=lyrics&lyricid=46

I'll take these guys over some ambivalent wusses who are tying to have it both ways.

Other Comments by corruptmemory

315. Comment #152330 by sugarbeth on March 30, 2008 at 5:44 pm

How anybody can read the lyrics and think that a creationist wrote them is beyond me.

Whoever made this video is a HUGE fan of the scientists in it and knows the issues well and is up-to-date on the whole Expelled thing. I see nothing but affection in the caricatures in the video.

The only way that this came from the Expelled camp is if they commissioned someone to do it and then got totally fucked over. Because this video makes the scientists look totally badass. Sure, they're arrogant, but that's because they're right.

I've been trying again and again to try to see this as being made by a creationist, and it just doesn't ever make any sense that way.

By the way, I've watched this so many times that my 6-year-old now has "Dick to the Dawk to the PhD" stuck in her head and keeps singing it. lol

Other Comments by sugarbeth

316. Comment #152331 by BMMcArdle on March 30, 2008 at 5:48 pm

It's anti-smart, but cleverly dumb.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

317. Comment #152333 by Dr Benway on March 30, 2008 at 5:59 pm

have to say i'm pretty saddened at how closed minded so many of a group of supposedly open-minded folks are. making such harsh condescending judgments on a fairly affectionate (if not in your exact taste) parody just leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

I think the artist will be okay.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

318. Comment #152339 by RationalistHomeTchr on March 30, 2008 at 6:27 pm

I think the video IS a success: it made people think, talk, argue, and watch again. It made some people laugh and others get mad.

Although I am a bit old-fogey-esque, I thought the video much funnier than did either my 16 y.o. or my 25 y.o. (both of whom love South Park, by the way). I'm sure I thought it funnier because I knew the people being referenced and got the "in" jokes. Obviously, humor is very much a matter of taste. I adore Eddie Izzard (cake or death, anyone?), but I'm not at all astonished that some people do not share my taste.

I liked the bit about a dyslexic RD hating dogs (bringing to mind the old joke about the poor insomniac, dyslexic agnostic who stays up all night, wondering if there really is a dog).

I LOVED the bit when RD said, "your concern is noted â€" and stupid." I can see why RD himself might not like it, however...One time a friend of mine and I were in a T-shirt shop and saw a shirt that sported a giant smiley face with the words, "I'm busy, you're an idiot, have a nice day." I smiled, mildly amused, but I felt really bad when my friend said that the shirt was perfect for me. I felt like gibbering, "I don't walk around acting like people are idiots!" But since then, every once in a while, I've thought, "CLICK. Sometimes I DO act like that." (Not proud of it.)

Finally, I am reminded of an interview of song writer/recording artist Paul Simon. The interviewer said something like, "Some people think this song means 'that-and-such' and others think the same song means 'this-other-thing.'" Basically, he asked Simon to weigh in and tell what the song REALLY meant. Simon flatly refused. He said something to the effect that, "I did my job: I wrote the thing. Now you listeners do your job and interpret it any way you want." His implication was that there would be many different interpretations...

By the way, a big "thank you" to those who typed up the lyrics to the Dawkins rap!

Other Comments by RationalistHomeTchr

319. Comment #152345 by corruptmemory on March 30, 2008 at 6:47 pm

The video is not flattering of Richard Dawkins. Yeah, I'm a 40 something loser and pozer: I listen to a lot of Rap (a-hem, hip-hop), but I don't think that anyone can claim "expertise" in art so take that declaration with a healthy helping of salt.

After posting my initial links to MC Frontalot and MC Hawkings I decided to go back and re-watch the video several more times.

My take: it is pretty decisively anti "New Atheist".

- Dawkins is presented as flippantly dismissive. The continual "expulsion" of unworthy scientists by the glorious machine on Dawkins side reinforces this throughout the video. These people are presented as effectively innocent researchers who have the audacity to even think outside the science box.

- The opening sequence presents science as an all-knowing dogma, cult-like. The scientist is expelled by the machine even before the scientist has a chance to expand on his hypothesis.

- Even if you were to compare this to other over-the-top hip-hop science pieces (nerdcore hip-hop) from MC Hawkings or Frontalot, in no way is science presented as dismissive or oppressive as is clearly evident in this video. On the contrary, pieces like "Fuck the Creationists", "What we need more of is Science", and "Origin of Spices" all clearly present the schism between science and ID as either self-selected ignorance, unintentional ignorance, or merely the failure to accept rational argument.

Richard, you can choose to read this piece as you please, but I'm quite sure it is rather not flattering. I would not be surprised if this piece was produced in some way related to the "Expelled" movie. I may be paranoid, but there you go. I'm also thinking that the producers of this video are all having a rather good laugh monitoring the relevant discussion boards seeing how long it takes before people piece it together.

Given the subject matter I am fairly convinced that this is not art for art's sake.

Other Comments by corruptmemory

320. Comment #152346 by Nibien on March 30, 2008 at 6:50 pm

I have to say, as far as my interpretation goes the machine is no more than logic.

This, I feel, mocks creationism (the lyrics themselves do a good job) in and of itself. The paranoia of a giant machine/conspiracy out to get them seems to be a fairly common theme amongst fundamentalists.

Other Comments by Nibien

321. Comment #152347 by Foth on March 30, 2008 at 7:01 pm

I think this video is very pro-ID actually. I know there has been a lot of discussion, but the way the scientist, who claims that "something else" is going on under the microscope, is thrown out with the "Expelled the movie" logo slapped onto his face seems to highlight the whole point of that movie: that people who question Darwinism are often fired from their jobs!

Actually, I've changed my mind already. I have no idea what it's trying to make fun of! I would think that the indifferent, and machine-like nature of the scientific method as depicted in the video is being celebrated by Dawkins and company, but is the allegedly "close-minded" nature of the scientific method something that ID proponents criticize? The rogue scientist who notices "something else" seemed very innocent in his statement and the way he is handled by the "machine" (unfairly, rudely) would seem exactly in-line with the point of Expelled the movie! Maybe the machine depicts something else, I'm not sure.

As for the humor, I laughed! It was crazy and whimsical and I had been down all day, so this cured my Sunday blues!

Other Comments by Foth

322. Comment #152351 by agg on March 30, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Heh, I absolutely loved this video. I don't think it has anything to do with age (I am in my late 30s). Musical preference might be a factor here; I like (almost) all styles of music and thus rap was not so off-putting to me as it may have been to some of you. Most importantly, I don't think this video would have worked if it weren't for the in-you-face attitude of rap.

What I'd like to say now, however, is that the initial laugh I got from the video pales in comparison with the complete and utter delight and amusement I get now by watching the (supposedly) rational people's reaction to it. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to dismiss anyone here, but I simply love it when something like this comes up stirring the pot, there being no apparent answer to the riddle as far as the eyes can see, and people start scrambling to form an "informed" opinion about whether it is "pro" or "against" and then rationalize about it.

Besides the pure fun, what I like in these situations is that people start to really exercise their brains; even to the point of over-analyzing. This is why we see so many different ways to argue whether the video is "pro" science or "against" science and the matter does not look like it is going to be resolved any time soon.

Which brings me to my point: I've been waiting for this for so long --- the moment when somebody comes up with something so close to that sweet singular spot predicted by Poe's law! And I must give it to the authors, not only for the masterpiece they've created, but also for the ingenuous way they've distributed it. I only hope that they let this go for as long as it can without ruining the fun by "explaining it".

As for my take on the video, in case you think I am dodging putting out an opinion here --- I think that the question of whether it's "pro" science or "anti" science may be an ill-posed one. It looks to me like the authors ridicule both ID and what they might perceive as some dogmatic, close-minded and shrill scientists. I can't see the authors being in the ID camp but I don't see them very sympathetic to the "new atheist" movement either.

Of course, I might be wrong, but I don't really care. My enjoyment of this clip is not going to take the slightest hit, even if it were conclusively shown that Ben Stein did it himself. I think art is art --- regardless of who created it or what his/her motives were --- and I am appreciating it as such.

Please, don't stop the fun. Keep this discussion alive!

Other Comments by agg

323. Comment #152352 by Wolfman on March 30, 2008 at 7:21 pm

A lot of people here seem to have a fundamental perception that attacking Richard Dawkins is equivalent to being pro-ID or anti-science.

Quite frankly, listening to this video, and particularly looking at the lyrics, I don't see how anyone can think this is pro-ID. When it discusses SCIENCE, it seems to come down quite firmly on the side of science, and not ID.

"But they make fun of Richard, they are patronizing towards him, they depict him as a bully".

Well, yeah. Saying that Richard Dawkins is arrogant, or a bully, or any other such description does NOT mean that you are pro-ID. There are plenty of atheists who find him arrogant and bullying in his approaches.

The way I see this video? It presents a brief history of science vs. religion, with science slowly but steadily gaining the upper hand. And it depicts one particular proponent of science, Mr. Dawkins, as having all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Throughout the rap, it refers to "discourse" and "debate", whether it be Democritus and Aristotle, or the Scopes trial. And in the midst of this "discourse", you have Dawkins just running roughshod over everyone else, bashing anyone who doesn't agree with him as unqualified to even comment or consider.

Its not an accurate representation of Richard Dawkins' approach; but given his aggressive stances, it is certainly easy to see how people could view him this way, and as parody, it is a perfect example of using hyperbole and exaggeration.

What concerns me in many of the reactions here is the apparently implicit assumption that to attack Richard means to attack science, or to be pro-ID. "They are mocking Richard, it must be an attack from the evil creationists!". Naw. I'm an atheist; and while I greatly appreciate many aspects of Richard's work, and the many contributions he has made in the science vs. religion debate, there are also aspects in which I find him arrogant, closed-minded, and abrasive. And I know I'm not the only atheist who feels this way.

Other Comments by Wolfman

324. Comment #152354 by steveroot on March 30, 2008 at 7:30 pm

211. Comment #152142 by Richard Dawkins on March 30, 2008 at 8:58 am
1. What's a "grill" (as in the "hilarious" thing that Sam is said to have)?

Dang. Missed the opportunity to provide professional advice. Sigh. Here's another source, though!
http://www.billybobproducts.com/gold-grillz.html
Ste5e

Other Comments by steveroot

325. Comment #152355 by Foth on March 30, 2008 at 7:42 pm

I don't really get how Dawkins is arrogant or close-minded. I always felt that people said that about him because he was perceived that way in the context of a world which often respects religion. Maybe a specific example of his manner could help me see otherwise.

But initially I thought this was some kind of Expelled the movie advertisement, but it still made me laugh! I think it's true that the conversation spawned by this video is even more funny. This might have already been brought up, but does anyone remember that Jib-Jab video outlining the Bush-Kerry thing? While I don't the issue is even a debate at all, I think the approach made in that particular video is the same made for this video. It pokes fun at the issue by appealing to the general public, while not really even taking a stance on it.

I think it's like when you're having a conversation about a serious issue with someone, and then that quiet annoying guy sitting next to you chimes in with some low level comedy.

Other Comments by Foth

326. Comment #152360 by Bonzai on March 30, 2008 at 7:57 pm

Maybe this is a university project in "post modernism".

The creators of this video are now monitoring our discussions to gather data for their report.

The arts in an area where PoMo would "make sense".

But it is an attitude, a kind of playfulness and a celebration of ambiguity and multi-layered meanings. It is not a formal -ism. The moment you try to turn it into some kind of high level "discourse" like the ivory tower intellectuals you lose its spirit. It becomes too self conscious.It is like on the other thread, some 8 year old little girl who attended some "freethinker Church" said grotesquely, " I like to be a freethinker". The irony is she sounded totally brainwashed. A truly free thinking 8 year old just does, she wouldn't even be aware of the label.

I agree that this is a success just by arousing our interest and generating so much discussion. It has at least succeeded in intriguing us, that is good. As someone pointed out, RD never posted that many messages in one thread.

I also agree with the other poster that the 24 year old Alexander kind of sounds like my dad. Actually no, even my dad is not that stuffy. I am 33.

Other Comments by Bonzai

327. Comment #152361 by CargoShip359 on March 30, 2008 at 8:04 pm

It's pure gold!!! Count me in!

Other Comments by CargoShip359

328. Comment #152362 by agg on March 30, 2008 at 8:06 pm

After a moment of reflection, I think I should admit to the obvious bias in my previous post too. Had this not been a forum whose general message I subscribe to, I would have argued more forcefully.

A piece of art, after it leaves the creative hands of the artist, becomes what you make of it. The artist's intention at this point ceases to matter.

This is why I don't understand the people who ask who the author of the video is --- as if this is somehow relevant to whether they should like it. This is also why I enjoy the fact that in this case the author is as of yet anonymous.

Other Comments by agg

329. Comment #152363 by Foth on March 30, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Yah. I think this is some kind of viral video.

http://www.viralvideochart.com/youtube/richard_dawkins__beware_the_believers?id=eaGgpGLxLQw

Unless someone can find the source of it...

Other Comments by Foth

330. Comment #152369 by The Soilworker on March 30, 2008 at 8:36 pm

It's simply much too clever to come from the ID camp. I enjoy parody and hip-hop and atheists, but I'll be damned if the funniest part aren't the disembodied/juxtaposed heads floating around with all their new-found finery. Hitchens' face was especially hilarious, what with the "I heart booze" sweatband too.

Other Comments by The Soilworker

331. Comment #152371 by alovrin on March 30, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Of course religion is more than truth claims. But it's the bogus truth claims that have to stop. The other stuff can go on.

Did humans living, say, 300 years ago, create parodies of an enemy's parody? Perhaps not, or not often. One hundred years ago, people sat at desks and wrote letters in long hand by candle light. By the time you might lampoon your enemy's misrepresentation of you, weeks likely would have passed. Other interesting things would have happened. Anyone who might hear your response to some troubling response, would probably have lost the plot of the original disagreement.

Rapid, electronic communication and mass media have made possible reflection upon the meaning and significance of a dialog while it's in progress rather than afterward. I don't know how humans are being affected by this development, but I imagine it must be changing us in a profound way.

The postmodernist is fascinated by such recursive aspects of communication. I think everyone has seen how excessive textual deconstruction can lead to a frustrating sense of unreality. No matter how pretty the maps we make, the territory is where it's at.

Dr Benway again


Sheez Doc you come out with 'em sometimes I love it.

Oh yeah the song NNNN its OK. I can see why Richard didnt particularly like it. He realizes he's in the pubic eye and will get all manner or things come his way( so to speak). And he's most certainly allowed an opinion on it.

Nothing particularly appealing about flabby white torsos thrusting, bass looops kinda catchy but gets repetitive, I like a bridge.
The visuals.. jeez.. the things people can do on the home computer nowdays.

Any way Dr I want to explore those quotes if I may
one day

OH Reggae classic "Walk a mile in my shoes"
Now thats a thought.

Other Comments by alovrin

332. Comment #152373 by Gordy on March 30, 2008 at 8:54 pm

Some people seem to think that if this were a viral ad for expelled it would be more obviously pro-ID or more directly linked to the movie. I don't agree.

I think it aims to raise consciousness about the central claim of Expelled, i.e. that scientists are being sacked for their beliefs. We know this isn't true, but this video is intended to make it look like there is some real contoversy to be addressed.

The aim is simply to help create the conditions in which people might think that Expelled is addressing a real problem. Our opponents do not have a case, but if they can create the impression that they do it should help to promote both the movie and their overall aim of attacking evolution. That's not to say it will succeed, but I'm almost certain that's the intent.

Is it entertaining? Of course it is - it has to be to encourage people to spread it round the internet. That's how viral advertising works. It's very cleverly done and genuinely funny in parts. It really doesn't matter whether the Expelled team are creative enough to put this together or not. They're quite capable of commissioning someone else to do it for them.

I admit I could be wrong. I'm just saying what I see.

Other Comments by Gordy

333. Comment #152376 by Rational_G on March 30, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Some of you people are way too paranoid. Must I point out the lyrics to the song for umpteenth time?

Just read the lyrics. What does that tell you?
No sophisticated analysis needed.

75% of the video is a song saying how good science is!

The pro-iders would never approve this - there's too many good things about science being said here.

If this is a virus, it's spreading some pretty good lines promoting science. On balance there is more pro science here than anti science. So sleep well, conspiracy theorists!

DICK TO THE DAWK TO THE PHD !!

Other Comments by Rational_G

334. Comment #152380 by Gordy on March 30, 2008 at 9:47 pm

Rational G>

I hope you're right and I'm wrong, I just don't think so. Look at the constant repetition of "he's smarter than you, he's got a science degree" which echoes the sentiments of the intro. How do you think most people will react to that? Particularly people who don't have a science degree...

Look at this whole verse:

"Now the machine of our making, sees culture ripe for the taking,
'cuz I'm the rappinest, rabidest atheist who,
unlike the Catholic, the Muslim or even the Jew,
believes that no God but science could ever be true,
hell, if I was dyslexic I'd even hate "dog" too."

If that's pro science then I'm missing something. It looks to me like a creationist parody, deliberately equating science with religion. Whose message is that? Not ours, surely.

I could go on, but I don't think for a minute that I'll be able to change your mind. I'm not even certain that I'm right, but I'm almost certain. Please at least be aware that, whatever the source, there is plenty here for creationists to use against us.

Other Comments by Gordy

335. Comment #152386 by Laurence on March 30, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Richard,

I genuinely do think this is a piece of satire, on the anti-creationist side. It parodies the creationists' portrayal of atheist scientists as elitist snobs expelling 'ID scientists'. This view is rooted in the anti-intellectual sentiments that abound in America, as noted by the cosmologist Sean Carroll:

What scientists tend to underestimate is the extent to which many people react viscerally against science just because it is science. Or, more generally, because it is seen as part of an effort on the part of elites to force their worldview on folks who are getting along just fine without all these fancy ideas, thank you very much.

The video thus caricatures this sentiment with great exaggeration. For example, the 'ID scientist' in the introduction and the older one at 2:47 were portrayed as victims, looking much more amiable than the other characters in the video. The Darwinist scientist at the beginning (with the diabolical mustache) is seen as engaging in some sort of conspiratorial scheme, ridiculously chasing down 'ID scientists' with a robot machine. The rapping Dawkins and company demonstrate extreme arrogance, chanting "he's still smarter than you, he's got a science degree", or "science is the only way to know y'all", etc. Clearly, they were being 'dicks'!

These are exactly the sort of exaggerations you would use if you were asked to caricature the creationists' view of the scientists. Furthermore, the lyrical content (never mind the actual wording, it's rap) reveals a knowledge of atheism and the New Atheists that the creationists are unlikely to possess, including references to Democritus and Aristotle, unmoved mover being bad logic, Hume striking Paley, Huxley and Wilberfoce, Darwin on the Beagle (and him throwing up on the ship!), Darrow and Bryan, Scopes, the squid on PZ's hat, Christopher's cigeratte, etc. I think it is hard to know these things and be a creationist simultaneously. I mean, if they know the unmoved mover argument is flawed, and that Hume destroyed the argument from design even before Paley expounded on it, surely they can't be creationists right?

These I think are the subtle satirical content in the video. Of course, what everybody immediately laughs at is the contradictory imagery of highly-educated scholars taking the role of 'gangsta rappers', who usually project themselves as the very opposite (though many of them are actually well-educated and intelligent). To portray the New Atheists as rappers, they show the hip-hop clothing, the baseball caps, the stereotypical pimp outfit, underdressed women (who are ubiquitous in hip-hop music videos), the diamond earrings, jewellery with the dollar sign (rappers are very fond of 'flossing', or showing off their wealth), and of course, the grill.

The hilariousness of the video thus comes from two sources: first and foremost the imagery of rapping professors with subtle hip-hop ornaments like the grill, and second the obvious exaggeration of arrogant, elitist scientists expelling those poor little 'ID scientists'. I confess I did laugh hard at this video, which I thought was much more clever than the pointless, stupid, and not-even-funny South Park episode.

Other Comments by Laurence

336. Comment #152388 by Gordy on March 30, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Laurence wrote: "These are exactly the sort of exaggerations you would use if you were asked to caricature the creationists' view of the scientists."

How, if at all, do they differ from the sort of exaggerations you would expect creationists to use to caricature evolutionists?

I'm tempted to invoke Ockham here, but it would be a cheap shot because I can see that there is some real ambiguity. All I suggest is that you consider the simpler explanation before plumping for the more convoluted one.

Other Comments by Gordy

337. Comment #152389 by clearthinker on March 30, 2008 at 11:12 pm

always, when given the choice between arguing for a position with evidence to support it and a position that he thinks might upset people the Reverent Robertson (aka Clearthinker ) opts for the latter.

Somehow I find this comment fits in very well with the video - don't upset the (non) believers or you will be expelled!

Another 'evidence' that the video is anti-atheist (or at lest anti-the claim that science=atheism) is that the machine is from the movie - the Incredibles. It is mean and nasty. It is also hung with a dollar sign.

The trouble is that the movie is so well done, and the song expresses the sentiments of so many of the people here, that people feel it MUST be on 'our' side. Its a mickey take and not even that subtle!

Other Comments by clearthinker

338. Comment #152391 by Laurence on March 30, 2008 at 11:34 pm

Laurence wrote: "These are exactly the sort of exaggerations you would use if you were asked to caricature the creationists' view of the scientists."

How, if at all, do they differ from the sort of exaggerations you would expect creationists to use to caricature evolutionists?

No I don't think they would be different. These are the exaggerations you would use if you were asked to caricature the creationists' view of the scientists, whether 'you' are a creationist or an evolutionist.

What I think gives away the video creator's identity is his/her references to the 'atheist literature'. I mean, if they know the unmoved mover argument is flawed, and that Hume destroyed the argument from design even before Paley expounded on it, surely they can't be creationists right? At most he/she is neutral about the issue, but then again I doubt someone who had actually thought about the issue on such level can still remain on the fence.

Other Comments by Laurence

339. Comment #152395 by Gordy on March 31, 2008 at 12:03 am

Laurence wrote: "These are the exaggerations you would use if you were asked to caricature the creationists' view of the scientists, whether 'you' are a creationist or an evolutionist."

That's not what I said. Why would creationists want to caricature their own views? What I asked was how the exaggerations differ from a creationist caricature of scientists. As far as I can see, they don't.

"I mean, if they know the unmoved mover argument is flawed, and that Hume destroyed the argument from design even before Paley expounded on it, surely they can't be creationists right?"

People are only going to pick up on that if they are already well informed about the debate. Good satire often mixes in a little authenticity alongside the exaggerations. It could even be intended to associate a few good ideas with the exaggerated caricature. People tend to respond to new ideas on an emotional level before they respond intellectually, so negative association can actually be an effective way of prejudicing people against sound rational arguments. I doubt if it's that deep, but whoever made this was undoubtedly very clever, so who knows?

Oh dear, I'm even starting to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist to myself now. Maybe I should go for a walk (being careful to check that I'm not being followed, of course). Make up your own minds. I suspect we're all going to find out the truth in a press release on Tuesday. That's Tuesday April 1st, just in case anyone's forgotten... ;)

Other Comments by Gordy

340. Comment #152400 by AllanW on March 31, 2008 at 12:21 am

Sigh.

Is that shit-stirrer 'clearthinker' still hanging around doing what he is known for? Seems so.

No, Robertson, 'don't upset the (non) believers or you will be expelled' is yet another example of deliberate falsehood; when will you extract your head from your rectum? The sheer fact you can post the message negates its content.

You lie as regularly as you breathe.

Other Comments by AllanW

341. Comment #152405 by Laurence on March 31, 2008 at 1:08 am

Laurence wrote: "These are the exaggerations you would use if you were asked to caricature the creationists' view of the scientists, whether 'you' are a creationist or an evolutionist."

That's not what I said. Why would creationists want to caricature their own views? What I asked was how the exaggerations differ from a creationist caricature of scientists. As far as I can see, they don't.

"I mean, if they know the unmoved mover argument is flawed, and that Hume destroyed the argument from design even before Paley expounded on it, surely they can't be creationists right?"

People are only going to pick up on that if they are already well informed about the debate. Good satire often mixes in a little authenticity alongside the exaggerations. It could even be intended to associate a few good ideas with the exaggerated caricature. People tend to respond to new ideas on an emotional level before they respond intellectually, so negative association can actually be an effective way of prejudicing people against sound rational arguments. I doubt if it's that deep, but whoever made this was undoubtedly very clever, so who knows?

Excuse me, I misread. Hmmm now that's an interesting question. Actually I think if I were a creationist caricaturing scientists I would do things differently. I would, as you say, mostly play on negative associations, so I'd do the big science, elitism, catching 'ID scientists' nonsense, just as in the video, but probably also throw in some Nazism and eugenics, some rubbish about there being no transitional fossils, etc. But I almost certainly won't waste my time incorporating references to Hume/Paley, Huxley/Wilberforce, Darwin on the Beagle, etc., stuff that mostly only atheists would be familiar with, and doesn't add anything to negative associations.

"I mean, if they know the unmoved mover argument is flawed, and that Hume destroyed the argument from design even before Paley expounded on it, surely they can't be creationists right?"

People are only going to pick up on that if they are already well informed about the debate.

Well of course, satire doesn't work if the audience is not informed doesn't it. I doubt you would understand much of, say, The Colbert Report, if you're not well-informed about the things he talks about.

Other Comments by Laurence

342. Comment #152407 by Wolfman on March 31, 2008 at 1:14 am

Gordy,

I'm just curious...why do you interpret an attack on an individual (Richard Dawkins) as an attack on science or scientists in general? Is he in fact such a giant of the atheist/scientific community that to criticize him personally means to criticize all atheists and scientists?

Yes, this song very clearly mocks Richard Dawkins, and seeks to cast him in an unfavorable light. But I have real problems with the huge logical leap that many people seem to be making that only pro-ID or anti-science types would do so.

Try watching the video, and viewing it in these terms:

Science itself is good, and has slowly been gaining precedence over superstition and religion throughout the centuries. There have been key debates and confrontations throughout history, some of which science won, some of which it lost...but overall, it is marching forward.

In the midst of the modern controversy stands a single man who seeks to present himself as a "giant" of the atheist movement, and who is so confident of his own knowledge that he acts arrogantly towards those who disagree, seeking to crush them.

When he views those who have come before him, rather than seeing those people as "giants upon whose shoulders he stands", he views them rather as his inferiors, as "midgets" who have made some contributions, but not as valuable as the contributions that he himself has made.

I am not saying that this is in any way an accurate or fair depiction of Dawkins; but if you read the lyrics, and watch the video, I think you'll find that my explanation here fits it pretty darn consistently. Even to having people like Darwin serving as his "back-up singers", playing a role that is subservient to his own role.

Check out the video again, using this particular interpretation...and let me know your thoughts.

Other Comments by Wolfman

343. Comment #152410 by scottishgeologist on March 31, 2008 at 1:25 am

Hi -a few peple have mentioned the "genre" associated with this - rap.

Ever seen Weird Al Yankovich's "Amish paradise"

Its on Youtube and extremely clever. "Gonna party like its 1699!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsfVw9xxoNY

Sheer brilliance

:-)))
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

344. Comment #152412 by Laurence on March 31, 2008 at 1:41 am

Alright, let's for a moment not bother with interpreting the lyrics, but instead look at what is included.

Why devote most of the song talking about Democritus and Aristotle, unmoved mover being bad logic, Hume striking Paley, Huxley and Wilberforce, Darwin on the Beagle (and him throwing up on the ship!), Darrow and Bryan, Scopes, etc., if the video creator is on the creationist's side? What does that add to your creationist propaganda purpose? Does it not make much more sense to throw them all away and talk about Nazism, eugenics, and absence of transitional fossils?

Other Comments by Laurence

345. Comment #152413 by Styrer- on March 31, 2008 at 1:44 am

The trouble is that the movie is so well done, and the song expresses the sentiments of so many of the people here, that people feel it MUST be on 'our' side. Its a mickey take and not even that subtle!

Robertson, you should perhaps acquaint yourself with the hugely diverse opinions which have been put forward on this video by 'so many of the people here' by DIGESTING the contents of this thread before you spout.

And speaking of subtlety, you yourself, sir, are about as subtle as tiresomely repeated kicks in the head.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

346. Comment #152414 by Russell Blackford on March 31, 2008 at 1:48 am

I'm still surprised that people are divided between its being either a piece of ID propaganda and its being some kind of celebration of "our" side.

There are elements of both, but it still looks to me like it's from someone very clever with a kind of South Park mentality. I.e., someone who doesn't deny that evolutionary theory is (as they'd see it) most likely true or even that atheism might well be right ... but who buys into all the schtick about "Dawkins and the New Atheists are arrogant."

Surely what we are seeing portrayed on the screen is a tribe of obnoxious, self-congratulatory people glorying in their success and superiority, treating outsiders ruthlessly, and so on. This is exactly the sort of message that South Park might deliver about high-profile science advocates and atheists ... without actually supporting ID.

I'm only using South Park as an example, not arguing that it was done by those people in particular. But there are stances from which you can slag off anti-religious and pro-science viewpoints, without actually thinking that, at the end of the day, there really is likely to be a God or that Intelligent Design, or any religion, is likely to be true.

And sure, there's a sense in which authorial intention may not matter, but (a) I always find authorial intention at least interesting, and (b) all the discussion can be translated into argument about how it is likely to be understand by an ideal viewer versed in the relevant conventions of interpretation, and so on.

It's even possible that we'll eventually find it was done by someone who didn't actually achieve the effect they wanted. Even that would be interesting.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

347. Comment #152415 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 31, 2008 at 1:53 am

Here is an example of something very similar, but "lampooning" Christianity. It's been around for a while, and predates my eventual apostasy. When I saw it, I considered it a very clever, but gentle critique of christian hypocrisy. Have a look.

http://vidsearch.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.channel&ChannelID=28033099

http://vidsearch.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=155819


Perhaps the elements in the Dawkins Rap that strike the more erm ... orthodox ... as offensive, are of a similar tone to what would offend a hard core christian in this video.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

348. Comment #152417 by Laurence on March 31, 2008 at 1:55 am

And let's not overanalyze the symbolisms (e.g., the 'significance' of the dollar sign, the grill, etc.).
These are simply common hip-hop gear:

Pimp outfit with dollar sign jewellery
Eminem in sleeveless shirt and baggy pants
Paul Wall wearing the grill
Bling bling jewellery
Underdressed women featuring in hip hop music video

The purpose of these is not to make a satirical point per se; they are simply part of the stereotypic outfit of 'gangsta rappers', which is what most people laugh at in this video (for reasons explained by Layla).

Other Comments by Laurence

349. Comment #152418 by bitbutter on March 31, 2008 at 1:56 am

Comment #152405 by Laurence

Actually I think if I were a creationist caricaturing scientists I would do things differently. I would, as you say, mostly play on negative associations, so I'd do the big science, elitism, catching 'ID scientists' nonsense, just as in the video, but probably also throw in some Nazism and eugenics, some rubbish about there being no transitional fossils, etc. But I almost certainly won't waste my time incorporating references to Hume/Paley, Huxley/Wilberforce, Darwin on the Beagle, etc., stuff that mostly only atheists would be familiar with, and doesn't add anything to negative associations.

Absolutely. Unless there was a sudden, dramatic departure from their tactics in the past (including in the expelled film), the whole vid would be strewn with straw men.

Here are some other things i would have expected to have seen if this was a creation of the expelled gang:

1. A reference linking Richard to the idea of panspermia (in the film Stein tries to imply that Richard is a believer in this view of the origin of life on earth).

2. Overt portrayal of 'new atheism' as a dogmatic religion (congregations, priests etc).

3. Straw manning of abiogenesis theories; "life began on the backs of crystals?!"

(ps. MC frontalot confirmed that it's not him rapping here)

Other Comments by bitbutter

350. Comment #152420 by Steve Zara on March 31, 2008 at 1:58 am

clearthinker-

Somehow I find this comment fits in very well with the video - don't upset the (non) believers or you will be expelled!

I am puzzled as to what your motivation is. Are you a believer in ID? If not, your concern for the integrity of science is touching.

Other Comments by Steve Zara