One of the perks of this blogging gig is that Roy Zimmerman sends me his CDs—you want it just for the songs Creation Science 101 and Intelligent Design, although the rest is toe-tapping good, too.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
More along the same vein: MC Hawking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MC_Hawking
Music video for the song, “What We Need More of Is Science”
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/233937
“I’m a disciple of science
I know the universe is compliance with natural laws,
but many place reliance on the psuedo-science of quacks and
morons and fools because,
their educations deficient,
they put faith in omniscient,
make believe beings who control their fate,
but the Hawk aint with it, dig it,
their Holy writ aint the least bit legit,
its a bunch of bullshit.”
Have you ever heard the “Monkey Song”? Now that’s some great propaganda. I have a copy of it from an older WFMU collection if anyone wants it.
“It seems so unbelievable/
And yet they say that it’s true/
They’re teaching our children in school now/
That humans were monkeys once, too.”
…etc.
Kind of off-topic, but I noticed that a couple of Scienceblogers seem to be taking the Eagleton side of the Eagleton vs. Dawkins debate (Benjamin Cohen at The World’s Fair and Chad Orzel at Uncertain Principles). I’m a bit flabbergasted by their arguments. Not that I would want to stir up a little Scienceblog brouhaha, but I’m curious if you have any reaction?
Just because we’re all on scienceblogs doesn’t mean we all agree with each other.
I find their weak, wimpy sympathies for religion to be craven; they find my vigorous and consistent application of scientific rigor to the supernatural intimidating.
“The Monkey Song“, and the flip, “The Ecumenical Movement”, by the young Crystal Bernard and her sister Robin (their father was an evangelist). Still online, along with the rest of the “365 Days” project of oddball music — some of which is very good, others so very bad. Bookmark it; there’s great stuff there.
damn you PZ! I wanted you to reply that we’re all supposed to agree on all matters, as all scientists of course do! But then you go off and provide an able defense of your own view. Mmmmm, craveny.
Which reminds me…the other sciencebloggers also tremble in dread of my savage sarcasm. It’s all fear and envy on their part, of course.
Richard Clayton wrote in the talk.origins newsgroup:
We need someone to write “Working in a Quote Mine”
and “Woke Up This Morning” (think Tony Soprano).
CDs, books, weird nick-nacks … you certainly do get sent a lot of stuff, PZ.
I should try to become as popular. ;)
A kind of ant “monkey song” is Ray Davis’ ape man:
So, when was the earth created: August 27 as Roy Zimmermann says or October 23 as Bishop Usher has calculated (see Ed Bryton’s comment: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/10/happy_birthday_earth.php)?
We need robust numbers.
For a good anti-creationist anthem, do not pass up Springsteen’s “Part Man, Part Monkey”.
Tell them soul sucking preachers
to come down and see,
part man, part monkey,
Baby, that’s me.
Good bass line from Max and Garry, too.
my own personal favorite anti-creationist lyric is from
Marvin Gaye’s old 60s hit Aint That Peculiar probably written by Smokey Robinson
You tell me lies that should be obvious to me.
But I’m so much in love with you, baby, ’til I dont want to see
That things you do and say are designed to make me blue
I’ts a doggone shame my love for you makes all your lies seem true
Well, if the truth make love last longer
Why do lies make my love stronger?
Well, ain’t that peculiar
A peculiarity
Ain’t that peculiar
As peculiar as can be
Know a lot about history
Know a lot about biology
Know a lot about that science book
Also passed the French I took
So I do know evolution’s true
and if your preacher thinks for you
What a horrible world this would be!
WITH NO APOLOGIES TO SAM COOKE ….btw after 40+ years, we miss you, Sam
Why can “Creationists” &/or “Intelligent Design” advocates ‘solve’ Sudoku Number Puzzles so quickly? THEY JUST PUT A “G” IN ALL THE EMPTY SQUARES; it’s just a matter of faith you know! It’s the same method creationists resort to in trying to prove their unsustainable “intelligent design theory”. They just assume all gaps in current understanding and/or knowledge regarding evolution must be filled with a (G=god) solution. Saves them having to think and question I suppose; blind faith, a refuge for the feeble-minded!
caliibre