Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Science Bloggers: Hook, line, and sinker

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I’ve spent several hours reading all the reactions to the Age of the Machine video (see my previous post) and checking out where it’s been posted. Except for Uncommon Descent it’s all on Science Blogger websites and the reaction is fascinating.

Almost without exception it’s being called brilliant in artistic execution. There’s just about an even split on who it disses more, scientists or creationists. But not on Uncommon Descent where everyone thought it was dissing scientists.

Here’s my take. There are two messages in it aimed at two different audiences.

One message is visible to a mass audience. That message is repeated over and over in the chorus that scientists, biologists in particular, are smarter than “you”. For the average person, the vast majority who aren’t scientists, that’s an insult. To a corporate executive or small business owner earning 10 times an academic scientist’s salary it’s a joke. Along with this a mass audience easily sees one scientist innocently saying “maybe there’s something more than natural selection going on here” and another evil scientist calling in the machine to throw him out on the street for questioning natural selection. The mass audience also plainly sees “EXPELLED” stamped on his forehead like a scarlet letter with the off-center X characteristic of the Expelled movie logo. So the mass audience sees exactly what the producers of Expelled would want them to see. That’s the only message that anyone here at Uncommon Descent saw.

Now on the science blogs the nerd boys clearly saw another message buried in the lyrics. Among other subtleties that go by too quickly and are drowned out by the chorus and visual effects:

We might have lost at Scopes, beaten down by the dopes,
and the stooges of popes, but in losin’ we coped,
becomin’ more than we hoped,
creationists slipped on the soap of their own slippery slope.

You see, this battle’s been ragin’ since Zeus was on the bottle,
‘tween Science like Democritus and Faith like Aristotle,?
who said the mover was unmovin’ like some magic trick,
but that’s no good logic, my posse is far too quick for this religious schtick.

(HT to Mark Norris for the above quotes).

These certainly don’t look like something our camp would write and does indeed give it something of a pro-evolution spin once you read it. It’s a message inside a message. To someone who reads the lyrics, knows the history, and is a scientist or scientist wannabe who believes scientists ARE smarter than “you” the subtle message appears to be the true message.

But who exactly sees the subtle message? As far as I can determine the only people who see it are science bloggers (Panda’s Thumb, Pharyngula, and a few other pro-evolution sites). People who have a rather deep knowledge of the history of the creation/evolution debate. And let’s face it, even among scientists that’s a small minority as most of them have lives where there’s no time or motivation to be concerned about this. It’s below the radar screen. They have jobs, kids, mortgages, politics, and televised sports worry about or take up their leisure time.

So what’s going on here? Clearly the creators (presuming the video didn’t evolve by chance & necessity 😆 ) intentionally put both messages in it. Just as clearly they made one message visible to a mass audience and the other visible to a tiny audience.

Here’s what I think. The producers of Expelled commissioned this video and knowingly made it appealing enough, ambiguous enough, to the science bloggers so that they’d help spread it around, which is exactly what they did. What happened here, I’m guessing, is that people with marketing degrees are playing people with science degrees like a fiddle. Who’s smarter than who now, eh?

Comments
[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt [...]» Comment on Science Bloggers: Hook, line, and sinker by Atom
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
Nice. Good call DaveScot.Atom
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
To settle the matter, it appears the producers have come out an vindicated DaveScot's analysis.... See: Who made "Beware of the Believers I would not have been so bold the PZ/PT-mafia would have been so easily duped. They were being made fun of and they relished it. They willingly submit themselves to ID marketing tactics. Amazing! Amazing! By the way, I nominate PZ for his academy award winning performance in Expelled.scordova
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
I think Dave Scot's analysis of this is exactly right. As usual he's weighed the evidence, tested the different hypotheses and distilled the most likely answer.Reg
April 4, 2008
April
04
Apr
4
04
2008
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
There you are, Atom!!!! I agree. Let's just wait it out and see. (And yes, I went to sleep last night with the entire tune going through my head.) Just a few things I noticed/enjoyed: I like the 'Star Trek' communicator sound when Little Tool calls Big Gadget. (Also the names themselves.) The word 'too' in the hillarious line "If I was dyslexic I'd even hate dog, too." Dawkins would never say he hates God. It this were really Dawkin, he would say "If I was dyslexic I wouldn't believe in dog, too." (OK, so that ruins the rhythm, sue me.) I'm reminded of the 1 minute 'Ask Mr. Science' comedy clips that PBS radio put on the air in the late 80s. A "writer" would ask a question, and then Mr. Science would give a wordy, bogus answer. (i.e. Well Jimmy, we all know that pidgeons are really evolved sewer rats with wings.") The closing credits would then claim Mr. Science was reliable because "He has a Master's degree---In Science!"Graceout
April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Built-in ambiguity is a hoary fiction writer's trick. The PURPOSE of the entire exercise is to get your audience parsing "what do they really mean?" AND WE HAVE A WINNER!!!jstanley01
April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
Graceout, thanks for the kind words. I'm here. And I'm as clueless as everyone else about the origin of the video. I have my hunches but would rather let everyone guess until the truth is revealed. And I have a strong feeling it will be soon enough. That being said, no matter who produced it, it is brilliant. The Pimp Dennett had me laughing for days. And the song gets stuck in your head...I find myself all day saying "Dick to the Dawk to the PhD...I'm smarter than you I have a science degree..."Atom
April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Whatever you want to call him, Atom is extremely talented in both musical structure and lyrics -- in addition to being well-spoken and well informed about all issues pertaining to ID. I still would like to get his take on this video...Graceout
April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
"Professional rapper" always sounds funny to me. It's more like an oxymoron. Professional rap lyricist or profession rap agent- Either that or somebody from the urban dictionary might come in handy.Frost122585
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
Looks like we might need some help from a professional rapper and expert in multimedia and graphics. Atom, are you out there?Graceout
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
There are a lot of similarities between this video and some of the JibJab videos. The opening mouths are very JibJabby. The two scientists (or at least their moustaches) in the opening scene of the video look (a little) like the two characters in the JibJab logo. Eugenie's belly-wiggling is similar to one of JibJab's video's (see the Hula one). Lastly, the Expelled site have a JibJab video on the Playground - featuring all the main characters of the machine video. Whether they have collaborated with an outside rapper, I don't know. But it sure looks like their design motifs all over this.andrew
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
DaveScot @ 40: "Gonzalez is an astronomy professor for pete’s sake. Pretty far removed from evolutionary biology. A damn fine astronomer too whose work in detection of planets in other solar systems is splattered all over NASA, the cover of SciAm, dozens of highly cited papers in the peer reviewed rags." You know what Dave, I think Gonzalez should sue based on ethnic/racial discrimination just to see what excuse the school will some up with this time. It has all the appearance of it given Gonzalez's fine workmanship, scholarly contribution and achievements. If ID is not the culprit, then maybe just being a Cuban-Amrican has something to do with after all. Who knows.JPCollado
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
Andrew I presented the video to hundreds of scientists sympathetic to ID and asked for comments on it. The scientists include just about every big name in ID out there as well as the entire staff of the discovery institute. That was 24 hours ago. Normally this group is rather verbose and I interact with them daily, almost hourly, but as of right now there hasn't been a peep out of any of them in response to me. I'm suspicious. It's like they all know something they aren't telling me. Maybe I just haven't waited long enough for a response but I'm beginning to doubt that. I love Shakespeare so I'll close with a quote from him: "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark". DaveScot
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT
Andrew Maybe there is even a little ‘trademark’ built into the video somewhere so that Expelled people can prove that it came from them? In the immortal words of Archie Bunker: My sediments exactly. I'd bet the smoking gun is that the faces on the actors are directly lifted from Expelled film footage. Once the film is out it'll be easy enough to point to a specific frame where a face appears, compare it pixel by pixel to determine there's an exact match, and that will be proof beyond any reasonable doubt.DaveScot
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
Maybe there is even a little 'trademark' built into the video somewhere so that Expelled people can prove that it came from them? Or maybe it would be more appropriate from the Designer not to write his name on it, with the result that we are left with inferences alone?andrew
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
Incredibly fascinating little video. Here's my view on it. a. This took a lot of work - it was not done overnight, nor in the last week in response to the publicity generated by PZ getting Expelled. It has been in the works for a real long time. Take the chorus line: Dic to the Doc(or Dawk) to the PhD. What is happening here? I think it is saying: Dick (reference to Dawkins, but also to the pelvic revolt that motivates atheists, in line with the body movements on the video) to the Dawk (which is apparently a sycophantic name Dawkins' followers refer to him by - but also could be spelled DORK, another play on his name) to the Ph.D (ie. DOC). The phrase is evolving: Dick, Dork, Doc. In other words, atheistic evolution proceeds along a line from sexual amorality to an argument from authority(I have a Ph. D and anyone who disagrees with me is stupid), in line with the rest of the chorus. If I'm reading that chorus line right, there has been a real lot of thought put into an amazingly well-done put-down. That was not thrown together in a moment. b. However, the video has very clear parallels with the Expelled movie - persecution of scientists who dispute darwinism, deliberate use of the word EXPELLED, etc, and as even some of the commenters on Pharyngula and Richard Dawkins site have come to realise, it is very anti-Dawkins. Dawkins' own comments on the thread on his website are amazingly irritated! He has every right to be huffy/perplexed about it, too - it is calling him (and the other atheists) a lot of names: authoritarian, smug, vicious, motivated by money and sex, a gangster, foul-mouthed, thinks himself more important in the history of Darwinism than Darwin himself, etc. etc. In short, this is very much of a piece with EXPELLED. c. However, again, it has a historical/philosophical depth that goes a long way beyond what I expect EXPELLED will be able to deal with - there are references not only to Greek thought, but also to a good few iconic moments in the creation/design/evolution debate. This was not put together by some back-yard rapper - there was serious input from philosophers of science, people steeped in the history of darwin's life, Richard Dawkins' self-adulation and the whole creation/evolution conflict. d. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reference anywhere to Intelligent Design. Although there are slap-down references to creationism (typical of the way atheists talk), there is no mention of ID. If this was put together by anyone remotely sympathetic to an evolutionary point of view, the first point they would make would be to equate ID with creationism - but they haven't. The potential for some rhyme based on ID (Ph.D?) would have been soooo easy - why is there none? e. There has been ZERO comment on this video from the people within the ID movement who have the philosophical background to be very, very interested in working out where this thing came from IF they had NOT seen it before it appeared on Youtube(E.g. Dembski, Disco people). Its not been shown on Evolution News or Discovery's site, and no comments yet from Dembski here. That's very strange - RD and PZ are blogging away furiously about it, but none of the ID big-hitters even think its worth a giggle? There's something going on ... Conclusions: This has EXPELLED written all over it. It has had serious contributions from senior ID thinkers, as well as some professional rappers. I think it is part of the Expelled marketing campaign. The atheist bloggers who see it as anti-evolution are confused at this point: what is the point, they say? They forget that before RD and PZ gatecrashed the pre-screening, Expelled was worried about getting its message out to the wider viewing public. This was part of the marketing plan - and what a brilliant little virus it is! I think the point is to eventually announce the DESIGNER of this video as associated with the EXPELLED movie, with the result that the movie gets even more exposure. However, in my opinion, this video is so good that it will outlive even the EXPELLED video.andrew
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
jpcollado A rather broad spectrum of academic disciplines are complicit in the expulsions and there's wide representation among the expelled too. Gonzalez is an astronomy professor for pete's sake. Pretty far removed from evolutionary biology. A damn fine astronomer too whose work in detection of planets in other solar systems is splattered all over NASA, the cover of SciAm, dozens of highly cited papers in the peer reviewed rags. His sole "crime" was to doubt that the universe is a big accident and say why in a book that was made into a movie that's more popular among religious types because it might give them hope that the universe isn't a big accident and we're here for a reason. A wide range of faculty were found conspiring in email behind his back to publically denounce him for his friendliness with ID and Discovery. It was found to be a factor used in his tenure decision even after the university denied it. You know how it with those pesky email trails at public universities and the open records act and all that.DaveScot
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Darwisciples' praise of this video is just a way to diffuse its impact. Sort of like when someone makes a demeaning joke about you in front of a crowd and you go ahead and laugh so not to seem hurt by it.JPCollado
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
tribune: "Dave, it’s not dissing scientists. It’s dissing Darwinian academic zealots" The Dawinian neocon delusion has been effective in muddying the waters.JPCollado
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
That Darwinists could believe this video to be anything other than an unqualified insult to them is a tribute to their proclivity to believe only what they want to believe about all things.
There does seem to be a bit of confirmation bias going on there, StephenB. Same sort of attitude that gets brought to the petri dish, microscope and test tube, no doubt!Lutepisc
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
If this production isn’t genius, it is close to it. Consider the “machine” metaphor and its power to describe the phenomenon of immediate expulsion; consider its relationship to the “ministry of scientific propaganda;” consider its reappearance as it approaches from a distance and finally towers over all the observers. Now reflect on the significance of dancing in front of the machine (worshipful submission to naturalism) and the lyrics (contempt for anyone who disagrees). Most important, think about how Darwin and his fellow worshipers are being ridiculed for their narcissistic fantasies about being smarter than the rest of us. That Darwinists could believe this video to be anything other than an unqualified insult to them is a tribute to their proclivity to believe only what they want to believe about all things.StephenB
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
There's a wealth of comments on Richard Dawkins' website. Dick to the Dawk hisself is commenting frequently. He doesn't find it amusing. At least not in his first several responses but I'm only at the second fifty comments with hundreds yet to go. http://richarddawkins.net/article,2409,Beware-the-Believers,RandomSlice Interesting comment:
130. Comment #151845 by the great teapot on March 29, 2008 at 2:49 pm This must be a work of genius. It is the first time in a year that Richard has seen fit to post more than one comment. Not since the creepy Iain Banksesque(thanks wiki) post modernist called September has Richard posted so many comments. Hats off to our enigmatic rappers.
DaveScot
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
William Wallace You're swaying me towards your interpretation. A large fraction of the commenters at Pharyngula believe that the caricature of Dawkins et al is essentially an accurate representation AND they furthermore believe it is flattering. Others believe it is accurate but unflattering. Yet others believe it is an unflattering parody. The collective cognitive dissonance going on over there is, if nothing else, quite amusing. P.S. Please excuse me missing your blog in the roundup of websites promoting the video. DaveScot
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
More fodder for the argument: "cos science is the only way to know yall" This statement is wrong, but seems to me an accurate characterization of the view held by these guys. A simplistic view of epistemology that is clearly self-refuting.Croath
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT
Whoever did it, it's brilliant work. That much everyone agrees!crandaddy
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
In thinking about the video, I am convinced that the entire video is an insulting caricature of materialist scientists that went right over a lot of their heads. Even lyrics that at first blush appear to support the PT-mafia point of view are upon consideration subtle but obvious jabs.William Wallace
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
"There is a line in the video that I think is very revealing. The line about scientists “standing on the shoulders of midgets” inverts the traditional motto “standing on the shoulders of giants” and in doing so lambasts the Darwinists’ lack of respect for the great thinkers of the past who made modern science possible. Quite a large number of these thinkers believed in the existence of a designer." That line is referencing Sam Harris' quote, "we appear to have been standing on the shoulders of dwarfs."Justin42
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Except for Uncommon Descent it's all on Science Blogger websites...
Well, you may forgotten about Comment 22, which pointed you to my take on the song (that it was ripping on atheist scientists). The appreciation of the song by atheist-scientists and their toadies reminds me of that Carly Simon lyric you're so vain, you probably think this song is about you. Either that, or those who claim the song vindicates the status quo in evolutionary science are just declaring support in spite of reality.William Wallace
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
I go to USC. Maybe I could talk him : )Berceuse
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Thank you, DaveScot, for your clarification. I recently read a review of Dawkins' THE BLIND WATCHMAKER by Dallas Willard, of USC. He has an interesting way of respectfully evaluating the arguments Dawkins posits. Perhaps UD readers and participants might find his comments fitting, particularly with matters discussed in this thread. The paper can be downloaded ( Line 42 ) at this URL: http://www.dwillard.org/articles/phillist.asptoc
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply