Just For Fun

Flash Animation Contest: “There is no God and Richard is his prophet”

Spread the love

I’m considering offering $250 for the winning entry in a flash animation contest. I’d like the flash animation to incorporate the following elements:

(1) Portray Richard Dawkins as a cult deprogrammer.
(2) Portray a 7-year old Stephen Colbert as the theist he must convert to atheism. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuXpysYEhgA and below)
(3) Employ 10 classic Dawkins quotes.
(4) No violence.
(5) I’ll throw in an extra 100 bucks for a flatulent version of Dawkins (only for private use — maybe).

This needs to be done cleverly and with a light touch. Right now I’m just soliciting ideas to flesh this out.

38 Replies to “Flash Animation Contest: “There is no God and Richard is his prophet”

  1. 1
    PhilVaz says:

    “I’ll throw in an extra 100 bucks for a flatulent version of Dawkins (only for private use — maybe).”

    Now this one I was already considering before you mentioned yet. I have plenty of nice audio of Dawkins to use. But too bad I was “banned” from here a couple of months ago. Hee hee.

    Phil P

  2. 2
    jb says:

    Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

  3. 3

    Sometimes the best way to love people is to give them strong medicine. Did Elijah love the prophets of Baal?

  4. 4
    shaner74 says:

    “Sometimes the best way to love people is to give them strong medicine.”

    Yes true. There’s a difference between “love thine enemy” and “let thine enemy walk all over you” Can’t your enemy learn a few lessons from a good rebuke too? Wouldn’t that be love?

  5. 5
    Borne says:

    Love the proposed title.
    One could love Dawkins – as an enemy to truth – and it would still do him no good whatsoever.

    How did Christ love the pharisees and other nerds of his time? With mush and fluff? No. By both public denunciations and subtle Jewish sarcasm on how stupid they were!

  6. 6
    Forthekids says:

    “No. By both public denunciations and subtle Jewish sarcasm on how stupid they were! ”

    But, he didn’t poke fun of them and promote a “flatulent version” animation.

    Someone linked to the following blog in an earlier comment:


    You guys might read it and think about it. I did, and realize I need to watch myself as well.

  7. 7

    What do you make of the apostle Paul expressing the wish that the Judaizers go the whole way and not merely stop with circumcision but actually castrate themselves (see Galatians)? I like Steve Jones (the Australian), but disagree with him here. In Titus Paul talks about Cretians being always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies and that for that reason they need to be rebuked sharply so that they may be sound in the faith. It seems that Dawkins and his fellow atheists deserve no less.

  8. 8
    gaspass says:

    Mr Dembski,

    Sir, I’m confused. I thought this was an Intelligent Design blog, not a Christian one, but you (and quite a few other commenters here) seem to be primarily interested in and making religious rather than scientific arguments. If I’ve misunderstood the intent of this blog and it is a religious blog I apologize for intruding since I’m not a Christian. Perhaps you could point me to an Intelligent Design forum where I can discuss the science behind ID?

  9. 9
    WinglesS says:

    There’s a time for righteous anger, but more often than not we are not called to condemn others – let us not be as they are, who show contempt without restraint, but rather forgive. Elijah certainly did mock the prohets of Baal, but Elijah is not perfect. Jesus is. Elijah also ordered for all the prophets of Baal to be killed. Should we then do the same? Surely not. I often say “them” and “us” but truly, if it were not for God’s grace we would be no better off than any atheist.

    They probably deserve no less, true, but if God gave us all what we deserved, we would all be dead. Let us give thanks for the grace given to us instead. I believe this is what Christianity is really about, giving people good that they do not deserve. Let us not attack with weapons of venomous contempt as they do, but with truth and reason.

    “The weapons we use in our fight are not the world’s weapons but God’s powerful weapons, which we use to destroy strongholds. We destroy false arguments;” – 2 Corinthians 10:4

  10. 10
    tenstrings says:

    I’d be interested in seeing Prof. Dawkins rendered into some analogue of the Child Catcher from “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang”.

    It would seem apposite given his recent announcements re: child welfare.


  11. 11
    DaveScot says:


    ID and evolution have religious implications and those are an appropriate topic of discussion. Evolution is supposed to be all about science too yet there’s no lack of mentioning religion in pro-evolution forums. If evolution were all about science one wonders why it must be shielded from criticism through courtroom shenanigans. Is that how science works now? Hardly. For instance, you don’t see physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, or even experimental biology needing to defend itself against criticism by invoking the first amendment establishment clause in a federal court. Evolution (with a capital E to distinguish it from descent with modification), my friend, ceased being science a long time ago. It’s become nothing more than dogma. It wilts under scientific criticisms and must resort to courtroom theatrics to shield itself against such criticism.

    There are threads here dealing specifically with science, half a dozen that I started in the past 10 days alone. I suggest you go participate in those if talking about the religious implications of Evolution and Intelligent Design isn’t to your liking. Both science and religion will continue be topics here.

  12. 12
    Mats says:


    I thought this was an Intelligent Design blog, not a Christian one, but you (and quite a few other commenters here) seem to be primarily interested in and making religious rather than scientific arguments.

    Do you say the same thing in pro-Darwinism forums, where anti-Christian material/comments/posts are tossed in constantly?

  13. 13

    Thanks, Dave, for your helpful comments about the diversity of material that appears on this blog.

    Now, back to “There is no God and Richard is his prophet” — I want your ideas!

  14. 14
    jb says:

    “In Titus Paul talks about Cretians being always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies and that for that reason they need to be rebuked sharply so that they may be sound in the faith.”

    Well, I don’t think I’m in any position to argue about matters of Biblical text with someone with your credentials, Dr. Dembski (and I mean that in sincerity and not sarcasm, as I do admire the work you do), so this will be my last post on this topic. I’m a newcommer here and a mere lay-person who has little knowledge of science (so far) and who has been struggling with my faith anyway, so I probably haven’t yet earned the right yet to be so bold as I’ve been. So if I’ve been too forward, please forgive me. (I still can’t believe I spoke up in an attempt to rebuke a prominent theologian; actually kind of gutless on my part, I’ll admit, since I’m hiding behind a somewhat anonymous signon).

    That said, in my humble opinion (whatever its worth), it just doesn’t seem like Paul’s witty quoting of Epimenides to make a point is on the same level as promoting a flatulence video. But that’s just my opinion, and I’m just a member of the peanut gallery, not really a participant in any scientific endeavors. But I tend to agree on this matter with Australian Steve Jones and with Dr. Heddle who said “This is d**n ebarrassing!”

    Moreover, I’ve been struggling with a small crisis in which I’m carefully examining for the first time in my life whether what I purport to believe as a Christian is indeed believable. I’ve made some progress toward hanging on to my beliefs, thanks to some great apologists, as well as some of the ID literature, but stuff like this (the flatulence videos, etc.) doesn’t help.

    I don’t intend to start a flame war, so this will be my last word on this item. I’ll shut up about it now.

  15. 15

    JB: I pray for God’s grace as you work out your salvation. As for “Paul’s witty quoting,” after making the quote he says “this statement is true.” He was not merely saying it for effect. In our culture, Christianity struggles with a false piety informed by misshapen cultural sensibilities. Why are people so bent out of shape by a parody of Judge Jones directed at adolescents in an age of Southpark when Richard Dawkins is endorsing a blasphemy challenge?

  16. 16
    gaspass says:


    Thanks, I’ll keep looking for one of your posts where you make a scientific point since it doesn’t seem the Recent Posts page goes back very far and I wouldn’t want to post on a dead thread anyway.

    I agree that ID has religious implications, as you say, but it seems that quite a few of the comments here rely on religion (specifically Christianity) to support argument. I am really more interested in the science of ID but until there is a thread about that I’ll talk religious implications I guess. Can a non-religious person come to believe there is a designer without becoming religious?

    Mats: No, but I haven’t been reading those forums. I am somewhat acquainted with evolutionary theory from school. ID is new for me and I’m trying to learn more to see how it stacks up against evolution. Argument supported by religion will not likely persuade me that ID has much to offer, which is why I’m looking for the science to support ID claims. I assure you argument supported by religious belief in favor of evolution would also be discounted by me.

  17. 17
    Forthekids says:


    The problem here is that your videos lead people away from the very real and very serious problem that the opposition has with reality. They continuously write bogus information about the ID movement and that is what needs to be pointed out time and time again until the general public gets the message.

    But, the videos stand in the way of that because your opposition bellows about them and that takes away from the actual message that you’re trying to get across. It also makes it appear that you are no better than the PT boys and their nastiness toward anyone who disagrees with them.

    Jesus and Paul made many direct hits, but in a different manner.

    I’d take this up privately with you, but I’m not sure how to contact you.

  18. 18

    Forthekids: Email me your phone number (I’m easy to track down on the internet). I’ll call you after the New Year.

  19. 19
    Forthekids says:

    Ugh…It’s like being called to the principal’s office.


    I’ll be in touch.

  20. 20
    Rowan says:

    I think satire is often a very effective way of conveying a truth that people otherwise wouldn’t hear. But it’s very important to distinguish between that and personal attacks.

    I would like to think that this photo manip I just made of Dawkins is satire…Happy Christmas all!

    If you like it you can do what you want with it

  21. 21
    Forthekids says:


    I think that one is okay. ..now, if you had added farting noices to Dawkins naked bod, I’d have thought you’d gone too far.

    Truth be told, just the picture of the puppet theatre wasn’t all that bad. I’d almost considered posting in on my blog, but the animation and noises were not necessary (IMHO).

    I mean, let’s be honest, Jones was a puppet for the opposition. There is no doubt that he had his mind made up before ever going to trial, but satire is only productive to a certain point.

  22. 22

    It bears pointing out that all flatulence has been removed from the official version of the JJSchOfLaw at http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com — it’s Dawkins who, in violation of copyright, is posting the first version.

  23. 23
    JGuy says:

    My two cents on your struggle. Don’t let what you think other people, who may have the same faith as you, should or should not be doing affect what you know to be true. Even if it is wrong to make a flatulence video, you should not allow this to cause faultering in what you find to be true, just becasue you might share the same faith as this or that person.

    It reminds me of what I have in the past been told, not confirmed as yet, is the most centered verse in the bible:
    Psalm 118: 8 – It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

    One of the first things I hear pastor Morey (i.e. Dr robert Morey) say in church was something along the lines of… ‘this is the place where saved sinners come, not super sanctifies saints’. And he at one time warned that he would eventually dissapoint fellow believers.

    [As an unrelated tidbit of trivia – I thought it interesting in the context of 66 books written over millineum – this verse ‘happens’ to be the most middle verse, is preceded by the shortest chapter in the bible and precedes the longest chapter in the bible. Shortest chapter -middlest Verse – Longest Chapter.]

  24. 24
    JGuy says:

    ‘this is the place where saved sinners come, not super sanctifies saints’

    …should read…

    ‘this is the place where saved sinners come, not super sanctified saints’

  25. 25
    DaveScot says:


    Can a non-religious person come to believe there is a designer without becoming religious?

    Sure. I did. I was a positive atheist for decades until I read Michael Denton’s book “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” 15 years ago. At that point I became agnostic. I was too busy in my career to really look into ID until a couple of years ago but all my life I’ve spent most of my spare time reading science and hard science fiction so I was pretty well informed on a wide range of science and engineering topics before concentrating on evolution and ID. I’ve been retired for almost 7 years and have oodles of time now for learning about things that will probably never bring home any bacon. I’m still an agnostic in rational thinking but I more or less formulated Pascal’s Wager on my own and bet that way before I was out of grammar school.

  26. 26
    PhilVaz says:

    Can’t tell if mine was a temporary ban, but here is my submission for the Flash contest. I was thinking of doing the Stephen Colbert thing but that was too much work. So I just did Dawkins with the Grinch hat, features 15 quotations, and you can click on the angel….


    You have my full permission to store the .swf and HTML on your site or any other site.

    Phil Porvaznik

  27. 27
    avocationist says:


    [i]Can a non-religious person come to believe there is a designer without becoming religious?[/i]

    Depends on what you mean by religious. I enjoy and criticize all religions, and am immune to membership in any.

    But God is my world. I contemplate the existence and reality of God a large percentage of my day, every day.

    I discovered the arguments against Darwinism some years ago and never have any interest in them if they are other than purely scientific. That was precisely why I was so overjoyed by them, that they stood on their own.

  28. 28

    Can we get this thread back on track — I continue to solicit ideas for the Dawkins flash animation.

  29. 29
    idnet.com.au says:

    I think the first step to getting the animation going is to get the quotes worth highlighting.

    I would suggest

    “Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakeable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.”

    “the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would b e a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference.”

    By the way, if the letter of copyright law were respected, Richard’s withdrawn essay, the source of the second quote, would be lost to us.

    Is gaspass’ first name Richard?

  30. 30
    tribune7 says:

    Do one where he’s a game show host in a Family Feud format.

  31. 31
    JGuy says:

    Flash stuff (back on track) …

    It could be a skit where future laws have been changed to incorporate Darwinistic philosophies in schools. Raising children in a home where a fundamentalist religions, involving a supernatural agent, is considered child abuse. Of course, Dawkins is the contracted cult deprogrammer the premier governement hires to re-educate children.

    And the child could be Stephen Colberts son, and not neccessarily Stephen colbert – that way you can utilize then historical reflections of his (Dawkins) experience on that show… and perhaps information Colbert taught his son after the experience.

    Bill, how’s this for a change from the initial outline?

  32. 32
    JGuy says:

    I meant to say – ‘premier cult deprogrammer’, not ‘premier government’.

  33. 33
    JGuy says:

    The flatulent idea could be compromised in the above, where a student (not Dawkins), which would be “normal” in school rooms – hence not taken as mean-spirited by most viewers; and this interrupts a certain parts of his lecture. Dawkins – reacts to ask the students whether they think this is a Judge Jones cartoon [weak humour I know]. One student could reply, no, but he did think it reminded him of the Nurnburg Rally (a quib taken from Dawkin’s description of what he thought of Ted Haggert’s service). Of course, a child of seven years old would not archive this type of information.

  34. 34
    IDist says:

    Stephen Colbert is so funny 😀

    And the funniest thing of all is Dawkins’ argument of “Who made God” that he thinks it disproves design theory. 😉

  35. 35
    shaner74 says:

    The comment that always comes to mind, and to me, really summarizes who Dawkins is and how illogical his thinking is is this one:
    “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”

    C.S. Lewis would have a ball with that one. I’d love to see it in the animation.

  36. 36
    JGuy says:

    In addition to my previous skit idea, I’d like to add that next to Stephen Colbert’s son in the class.. an appearance of a son of David Quinn would be hilarious and make the cake.

    I can hear his young Irish accent now probing Dawkins in the classrom… “Yeww can’t explain the origin of matter; but, Mr Dawkins, I claim to know the PROBABLE cause.. and that cause is Godddd. “

  37. 37
    hugh williams says:

    Since Sir Richard loves to hear from his many fawning fans….I wonder how he’d feel about getting a call from his biggest fan, Roy D Mercer? “Someone could get their arse whipped over sumptin like that”

  38. 38
    mike1962 says:

    William Dembski, “Sometimes the best way to love people is to give them strong medicine. Did Elijah love the prophets of Baal?”

    There is the little matter of the apostles asking Jesus if they should “call fire down from heaven” in a manner similar to what happened with the priests of Baal. Jesus rebuked them saying “you don’t know what kind of spirit you have.”

    Nevertheless, having said that, and assuming the truth of Christianity, I, personally, would probably be willing to sin a little and blast the jerks with fire anyway. Of course, Jesus himself will be doing plenty of that upon his return, if the NT is true.

Leave a Reply