Intelligent Design Comedy

PZ Myers is a biologist, vocal atheist, and blogger who was interviewed for Ben Stein's goofy new Intelligent Design documentary Expelled. Through their website, he signed up for a local screening, and showed up with some family and guests.

A producer of the film recognized him and had him escorted off the premises, while allowing his family and guests in.

Guess who one of those guests was?

Just goes to show they weren't throwing him out because of what he believes, but rather because he's an ass about it.

I'm afraid I don't know anything about this chap, but going literally from the piece linked it seems ridiculous that a man out with his family who assures them he is not there to cause trouble would be asked to leave. Especially since a much better known atheist (yes I have heard of Dawkins!) remains.

I accept there may be many things I don't know though.

Clodfobble;440644 wrote:

Just goes to show they weren't throwing him out because of what he believes, but rather because he's an ass about it.

That's an amusing take. I wouldn't be surprised to see them try it. Especially ironic, given the subject and content of the film.

From another (ED biased) site. An eyewitness account.

Dawkins asked a simple question: Why was one of his colleagues interviewed in the movie denied a chance to come see this movie and protest it and in fact was escorted out by security prior to admittance to the theatre? The irony apparently escaped Mr. Dawkins that he himself was a gatecrasher to the movie and was uninvited; nevertheless, he wanted to know why his colleague was turned away even though he himself was admitted as were his colleague’s family.

I just happened to be standing directly in line behind Dawkins’ academic colleague. Management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in. Management then approached the man, asked him if he had a ticket, and when he confirmed that he didn’t, they then escorted him off the premises. Nowhere was one of the film’s producers to be found, and the man certainly didn’t identify himself. If a producer had been nearby, it’s possible that he would have been admitted, but the theatre’s management didn’t want to take any chances.

So ultimately Dawkins’ first complaint was irrelevant. His second complaint was that any statement he made in the film was in fact under the assumption that he was being interviewed by Ben Stein (and by Mark Mathis) for a film that was to take an even-handed look at the Intelligent Design/Evolution controversy. Unfortunately, the entire audience, minus Dawkins’ posse, agreed that that the film’s main point was that Intelligent Design should be taught in conjunction with Evolution.

However he kinda lost me with this "spoiler" tacked on the end of his account. Bold mine.

Many scenes are centered around the Berlin Wall, and Ben Stein being Jewish actually visits many death camps and death showers. In fact, Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany.

Excuse me, off to polish my jackboots and beat up some Downs Syndrome kids.

Yeah, that's part of what I was referring to with the irony. :headshake

The references to "gatecrasher", "uninvited", and "tickets" are silly, given how admittence is gained. It's not even internally consistent- Myers' family and guests had "tickets" and were "invited"?

Happy Monkey wrote:

That's an amusing take. I wouldn't be surprised to see them try it. Especially ironic, given the subject and content of the film.

Really, they just didn't want him to ruin part of their marketing campaign on their website. (Check out the quote at the top of the page.)

Clodfobble;440644 wrote:

Just goes to show they weren't throwing him out because of what he believes, but rather because he's an ass about it.

Yes, but could he speak english only or did he try to be an ass in Russian?:3eye:

A "zhopa," then?

It's remarkable just how many biological structures are so very ad-hoc and improvisational. How intelligent is it to put the eye's blood supply on top of the light detector? Or a urethra through the middle of a prostate that tends to enlarge in later life? No, biological design doesn't necessarily impress with its engineering.

That said, it doesn't necessarily stop me from being a believer, primarily because of one single big-M mystery: I don't know why the Big Bang banged. I could say "God did it," and speak no worse nonsense than anyone else talking about the inside of Planck time, that first ten-to-the-minus-forty-third of a second.

The ID stuff is amusing on so many levels:

1. Sunday schools that teach the Genesis story of creation are not required to comply by the same rules. If Sunday schools were made to follow the same rules, they would be required to state that Genesis is a creation myth and that equal time should also be given to the teaching of other creation myths.

2. Intelligent Design is bad theology. It reduces the role of the deity to a genetic engineer slightly in advance of the current technological state of the art. The deity wouldn't be a designer, the deity would just go *bam* and everything would be just so.

3. The Bible does not specifically deny evolution. When it says that God created these creatures and then God created other creatures later, it does not state how. Evolution is the mechanism. It is especially interesting to follow the chronologies of Genesis and modern science and find that in many cases both agree on the order in which creatures arrived on the earth. Instead of creating a fuss about the differences, I believe religion would be better served by highlighting these similarities.

4. Intelligent Design is intentionally written for theological ends and invites speculation on the identity of the designer. Because Nature is red in tooth and claw, it follows that life can only have been designed by a malevolent being, and not a benevolent deity. So if one is forced to speculate on the identity of the designer, say that Satan did it.

Now I'm not against religion. I'm just against religion being used inappropriately.

Ha ha! They let Richard Dawkins in. Ha Ha! I would have too. Who the hell is he, apart from the impressive distinction of being an atheist. Is that his career? I honestly don't know anything about him. Never heard of him.

Cicero, "scientist", refutes Light, maintaining:Light is not light- it is a "dark sucker", a masterfully executed design process by the hand of god.
Therefore: Light does not exist, but dark suckers do.:) heh.

Here is undeniable proof! Don't even try to deny this as fact.

http://home.netcom.com/~rogermw/darksucker.html
:D

Cicero;443018 wrote:

Here is undeniable proof! Don't even try to deny this as fact.

Damn... your right!

The Dark Sucker Theory

For years, it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light,
but recent information has proved otherwise. Electric bulbs don't
emit light; they suck dark. Thus, we call these bulbs Dark Suckers.
The Dark Sucker Theory and the existence of dark suckers prove
that dark has mass and is heavier than light.
First, the basis of the Dark Sucker Theory is that electric bulbs
suck dark. For example, take the Dark Sucker in the room you are in.
There is much less dark right next to it than there is elsewhere. The
larger the Dark Sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark.
Dark Suckers in the parking lot have a much greater capacity to suck
dark than the ones in this room.
So with all things, Dark Suckers don't last forever. Once they are
full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the dark spot
on a full Dark Sucker.
A candle is a primitive Dark Sucker. A new candle has a white wick.
You can see that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing
all the dark that has been sucked into it. If you put a pencil next to
the wick of an operating candle, it will turn black. This is because
it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. One of the
disadvantages of these primitive Dark Suckers is their limited range.
There are also portable Dark Suckers. In these, the bulbs can't
handle all the dark by themselves and must be aided by a Dark Storage
Unit. When the Dark Storage Unit is full, it must be either emptied
or replaced before the portable Dark Sucker can operate again.
Dark has mass. When dark goes into a Dark Sucker, friction from
the mass generates heat. Thus, it is not wise to touch an operating
Dark Sucker. Candles present a special problem as the mass must travel
into a solid wick instead of through clear glass. This generates a
great amount of heat and therefore it's not wise to touch an operating
candle.
Also, dark is heavier than light. If you were to swim just below
the surface of the lake, you would see a lot of light. If you were to
slowly swim deeper and deeper, you would notice it getting darker and
darker. When you get really deep, you would be in total darkness. This
is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the
lighter light floats at the top. The is why it is called light.
Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were
to stand in a lit room in front of a closed, dark closet, and slowly
opened the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet.
But since dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave
the closet.
Next time you see an electric bulb, remember that it is a Dark Sucker.

Kingswood;442756 wrote:

Intelligent Design is intentionally written for theological ends and invites speculation on the identity of the designer. Because Nature is red in tooth and claw, it follows that life can only have been designed by a malevolent being, and not a benevolent deity. So if one is forced to speculate on the identity of the designer, say that Satan did it.

So spake the Cathars.
So we burned 'em.

xoxoxoBruce;443096 wrote:

Damn... your right!

Well I know I'm right....:D
I have studied this theory for years, and not only can it be replicated over and over, it's just right....so right as rain! (also an act by the hand of god)
And guess what? I am even more right xo!!

An atheist page weighs in.

And Roger Moore. Then again, Moore hates about everything. A Mortimer Brewster for the twenty-first century.