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
I think Dave is right on in his analysis. There is one other thing about it that I thought of after watching it. That is, the ORIGIN of the video is unknown. That sets the viewers and the discussion on where this video originated, and how it orginated. Being logical thinking human beings, we know that videos with this level of complexity do not arise from random interaction of video data on Youtube. They must be designed. How do we know that? I suppose that is a "Just So" argument and cannot be proven scientifically. This is also suggested in the video, when Dawkins notes that the Machine orginated long before his time with no explanation for how it orginated. How did the Machine come into existance?? Of course it's from 4 billion years of random interaction of metalic elements!! This is cleverly done, and the fact that the origin is unknown makes it likely to me that the authors wanted there to be speculation about its origin.parapraxis
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
[...] Science Bloggers: Hook, line, and sinker 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 b… [...]World News » Science Bloggers: Hook, line, and sinker
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Dave: Perhaps I'm a bit sensitive. I'm currently earning a PhD in math and had to endure the lectures from uncles and other family members that I was wasting my time going into academics. Surely, they said, if I was really good at math I would go into industry, become and actuary, or work at the NSA. Sorry if I misunderstood you.mathstudent
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
Another way of stating it is that we all desire to be right and say "I told you so". Everytime complexity and design in life is discovered, further eroding the possibilithy that undirected material processes account for it all, Materialists let out a silent groan, and then must muster ever greater creativity in formulating some materialistice explanation that stretches the boundary of plausibility. Meanwhile, the IDer takes comfort and encouragement from the discovery, while building motivation to get out there and discover yet more design. One balloon going up, the other sinking.Ekstasis
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
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. The arrogant Darwinist, believing that he is the brilliant intellectual giant, is dismissive of an intellectual tradition far richer and more profound than he understands. The basis for the Darwinist's arrogance? He's got a "science degree." Priceless.Pope
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
Very well said, Dave.FtK
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
toc The dichotomy between creationists and scientists was taken from the video and the comments on the science blogs not my personal beliefs. As far as I'm concerned the two are not mutually exclusive but people like Myers and Dawkins believe they are. I focus on results rather than methods or ideologies. If one scientist believes he is studying the rational work of a rational God and another beleives he is studying the random interaction of law and chance I don't really care about the difference in perspective. Both demonstrably yield fruit. That said it does seem to me that a belief that a rational God created a rational, ordered universe that may be understood by intelligent beings created in the image of God is a more sound basis for the philosophy of science. It presumes a cause for rationality and order in the universe. It also presumes that we are capable of understanding the rationality and order in the universe. These build confidence that rational explanations for everything we see exist and can be discovered. What inspires the same confidence in people who think the universe is a big accident? Accidents don't require rhyme and reason behind them.DaveScot
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
Lutepisc: I believe the rap is a reference to Aristotle’s “unmoved mover.” Same idea as the “prime mover” or “uncaused cause” which Dawkins and the Darwinbots seem to have such difficulty understanding. I reckon so. I've decided to postpone my rap debut.Charles
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
scordova: I can just see response now "Salvador Cordova compares ScienceBloggers to serial killers"SCheesman
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Ah yes, here it is, the case of Robert Spangler. http://www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/S/SPANGLER_robert.php It shows that unsavory individuals with inflated egoes can be played like a fiddle toward their own demise if you know how to push their buttons. If the video was by ID proponents, then it tells me we've got some top notch personality profilers on our side. :-)scordova
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
mathstudent I was comparing two different points of view. From the point of view of a successful entrepreneur being labeled less smart than a scientist is laughable. The entrepreneur is using an equally valid but different metric to measure "smart". The statement "I'm smarter than you because I have a PhD" is no more or less valid than "I'm smarter than you because I make more money".DaveScot
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Okay, I'm just dying to know who put this thing together...FtK
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
The video articulates and expresses so precisely what the ScienceBloggers feel deep down, thus it is a voice for their inner most thoughts. Perhaps they don't realize that their inner most thoughts will not endear them to the rest of the world, nor the people they wish to reach out to.....or maybe, like PZ and Dawkins, they just don't care anymore... The critics are just being their ole lovable selves..... If the ID folks were behind it, then they are just playing the critics like a fiddle. Reminds me of how the FBI once caught a serial wife killer by simply offering to promote his story if he came clean. The Serial killer was so enthralled with opportunity at "fame" he willingly went to jail so that his story could be told.....[sorry I don't have the name of the guy off hand] The FBI had top notch personality profilers working on the case, and they realized they had a shot by playing to the inflated ego of the serial killer. Perhaps the video expresses something the critics have been longing to say for a long time...if the ID side was behind it, then like the FBI, the ID side is using the critics inflated egoes against them...scordova
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
I just read the comments about it at Pharngula. Mind boggling. They have such a bizarre view of people who adhere to religious belief or "fundies" that many of them think we wouldn't understand or enjoy the clip because of the "rap" music, "bleeps", etc. Personally, I think it's the most hilarious thing I've seen on youtube. It's great. My kids fell to pieces laughing over it as well. Maybe we're not "fundie" enough...FtK
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Charles, I believe the rap is a reference to Aristotle's "unmoved mover." Same idea as the "prime mover" or "uncaused cause" which Dawkins and the Darwinbots seem to have such difficulty understanding. (I.e., it doesn't mean that the deity doesn't do anything; it means that God is the origin and source of everything temporal.)Lutepisc
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
DaveScot, "scientists or creationists." I am surprised that these groups dichotomized in your post. Darwinists might make that distinction, simply by their doctrine although a spurious one.toc
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
Brilliant! Best thing about the science bloggers is their willingness--nay, happiness--to embrace the gangsta image and la machine. Life imitates art. As to the question of whether Aristote was a materialist: No, and he expended a great deal of energy trying to make this clear.allanius
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
Davescot, surely you're not saying that people who earn more $$$ are smarter than those who don't?mathstudent
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Mark Norris made mention to me that: "My main read on this is just that in general it supports the scientific method." I find that interesting because that seems to indicate that their side is saying that the scientific method is out to eliminate that "religious shtick" by silencing guys like that "watchdog *wingnut* Paley". It seems as if they agree that scientists are "fram[ing] the discourse that faith and science are split in schismatic divorce". This isn't a "scientific" agenda but rather an atheistic one. Do they even see a difference between the two? I'm not sure they do, and that's what's so interesting about the conversations going on from their perspective. It appears they are quite vocally equating science with atheism. I thought that is what Genie et. al. were trying to con the public into thinking was an incorrect view of their position. This video has certainly brought out some interesting acknowledgements from the "scientific community". That's for sure. Just bear in mind that science owes it's existence to God.FtK
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
(lets try that post again) Perhaps the lyrics aren't quite right? You see, this battle’s been ragin’ since Zeus was on the bottle, [agreed, an ancient debate] ‘tween Science like Democritus and Faith like Aristotle's,? [but, Democritus and Aristotle were both materialists, no?, what is the faith reference to Aristotle and why the placement of that question mark, unless perhaps it is an allusion to Aristle's faith in his "science"] who said the mover was unmovin’ like some magic trick, [this perhaps should be: who said the mover wasn't movin’, like some magic trick? the point being, this is a rhetorical question meaning 'oh yeah?, well who sez the mover [God] was not actually moving in magical ways'] but that’s no good logic, my posse is far too quick for this religious schtick. [but we "brights" are too intelligent to have faith in God, we just have faith in "science". Note the allusion to 'religious schtick' casts the preceeding in a negative light relative to Dick's Posse, i.e. Dick's Posse can't accept, de facto, a mover that moves magically] the stanza seems to impune the "brights" inability to accept "magic" if it's from God, but "magic" from (Darwinian) science is acceptable. (consumes large grain of salt)Charles
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
Perhaps the lyrics aren't quite right? You see, this battle’s been ragin’ since Zeus was on the bottle, [agreed, an ancient debate] ‘tween Science like Democritus and Faith like Aristotle's,? [but, Democritus and Aristotle were both materialists, no?, what is the faith reference to Aristotle and why the placement of that question mark, unless perhaps it is an allusion to Aristle's faith in his "science"] who said the mover was unmovin’ like some magic trick, [this perhaps should be: who said the mover wasn't? the point being, this is a rhetorical question meaning 'oh yeah?, well who sez the mover [God] was not actually moving in magical ways'] but that’s no good logic, my posse is far too quick for this religious schtick. [but we "brights" are too intelligent to have faith in God, we just have faith in "science". Note the allusion to 'religious schtick' casts the preceeding in a negative light relative to Dick's Posse, i.e. Dick's Posse can't accept, de facto, a mover that moves magically] the stanza seems to impune the "brights" inability to accept "magic" if it's from God, but "magic" from (Darwinian) science is acceptable. (consumes large grain of salt)Charles
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
But not on Uncommon Descent where everyone thought it was dissing scientists. Dave, it's not dissing scientists. It's dissing Darwinian academic zealots.tribune7
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
I think Jehu's right. The song and the video are told (satirically) from Richard Dawkins's point of view. That's why his points of view on ID and creation appear in the lyrics. I don't think it's a complicated as Dave is making it.Ryan
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
Dave, That's exactly what I thought! Oh, the rich deliciousness of PT-bots infected by a Premise Media viral video!todd
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
01:19 AM
1
01
19
AM
PDT
A lot of people don't even know that the Darwinist's lost Scopes. It is typically creationists that are tirelessly pointing that fact out. But here is what I think. The video is a caricature of the Darwinists and the types of things they think and believe. The lyrics are just to lampoon the point of view of Dawkins and others and how they see the world. i.e. how they see themselves as intellectually superior and prevailing in a long struggle against faith and belief.Jehu
March 31, 2008
March
03
Mar
31
31
2008
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
I think it's a testament to the creators of the video, whoever they are, that no one can agree on which side it's on! Even Richard Dawkins, on his own blog, had to ask his readers: Is this for us or against us?NormO
March 30, 2008
March
03
Mar
30
30
2008
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply