1. Kagehi says

    Given that there is not, as so many people have *tried* to fracking tell you clowns, such a thing as “Darwinism” in modern biology, you might as well be babbling about geocentrism and insisting that modern cosmology is all based on false premises because some clowns centuries ago thought it made sense and some clowns today insisted that all “cosmologist” where geocentrists, because they still used some of the same math as the clueless people that once did think it made sense.

    Or is that too complicated of a sentence for you to parse Billy?

    Sorry for feeding this new troll, but damn I get tired of this, “Attack the imaginary bullshit my priest tells me scientists believe in, because I everyone around me is too stupid to figure out what they do *reason* makes sense based on evidence, instead of belief.”

  2. Conway Twitty says

    Blly Brgg wrt:

    “”My gl n ll f ths s tht, s chldrn, y shld b rsd nly n trth, rsn, fct, nd ntllct. Tgthr w shld b wrkng twrd pnt n th nt-s-dstnt ftr whr th wrds “Chrls Drwn”, nd “rnst Myr” crt th sm rspns s fngrnls n chlkbrd. Thr s nthng wrng wth dsblf n Drwnsm. cn s tht th tpc mks mny f y ncmfrtbl. Hwvr, ths shld nt b vwd s bd thng. Y my wp nw, bt yr trs r pstv, nt ngtv. Y r nw fcng th trth, whch cms n mny frms nd s nt lwys cmfrtbl. Ths s fct tht y wll b xpsd t gn nd gn thrght yr lvs. f y wsh t lv lf tht cntns nly cmfrtbl nfrmtn nd nt ncssrly th trth, thn yrs wll b hghly dldd xstnc. Yr ntllctl mtrty dpnds n whthr r nt y r cpbl f ccptng th trth t ths rly g. Tht s why thr s n bttr plc t bgn thn wth th bsrdty tht s Drwnsm. Nw thn, wth ll tht sd, wsh t thnk y fr yr tm tdy, nd shld lk vry mch t pn p th flr t ny qstns y my hv.”


    [This is pathetic. Now Charlie Wagner is talking to himself.

    At last he’s found someone who will listen to him, but he doesn’t need to do it here. Get a pair of sockpuppets, Charlie, one for each hand, and sit alone in your house and have a dialog.]

  3. says

    Just to clear up some possible confusion for future viewers, Kagehi is arguing with Charlie Wagner, who is trying to appear here under various aliases (“Billy” and “Conway”) and getting obliterated as soon as I spot him.

  4. George says

    I agree, not quite Dawkins-like. It’s not nearly acerbic enough. It lacks punch. Should have included a few sychophantish letters to Santa from the kiddies, with Dawkins’ sneering comments.

  5. Great White Wonder says

    I dunno. To me it read pretty much like a word-for-word Dawkins lecture with Santa substituted for God.

    Damn funny, actually.

    The parallels between the two myths are actually pretty deep, with the severe exception that those in charge of perpetrating the God myth never tell their “children” that it’s a pile of pretend bullshit designed as a reward to encourage “good” behavior.

    And so those “children” grow up to be deluded adults. A whole fucking lot of them, sadly.

  6. paul@be says

    well when I read it, it was like I could hear him say it, must be thanks to all those interviews and lectures seen on youtube,
    by the way PZ, does it happen often that all the “top five/most active” post on sciencblogs (somewhere on the right here (why am I telling you where to find that list?)) are from pharyngula?
    nice posting!

  7. Time Magazine's Person of the Year says

    Santa is real; he’s a Gallifreyan Time Lord. His sleigh is a TARDIS. =p

  8. SmellyTerror says

    “Darwinian evolution enables us to comprehend who we are and where we’ve come from.”

    “If you are the sort of person who is interested in the truth, perhaps you would consider asking yourself this question: how exactly does a single elderly man not only manufacture but also deliver in a single evening what would, by all forms of logic, account to be millions of toys?”

    You’d say that to 5 year olds? Seriously? Pfff. There’s a man who needs to learn how to write to his audience.

  9. Bad Albert says

    I liked it. Also liked this one further down on the list:

    Bob Hope’s Audition for the Role of Quint in Jaws: April 12, 1974 (The USS Indianapolis Monologue).

    “So 11 hundred men went in the water, 316 men came out. They call that another typical day over at Liberace’s house.”

  10. says

    GWW said:

    The parallels between the two myths are actually pretty deep…

    Oh, don’t you start! You’ll only set Susan “He’s makin’ a list, and checkin’ it twice” Williams off again – or PZ will post another rock video so atrocious that no-one knows if it’s a parody. ;-)

  11. says

    Ahh this was written by Mike Jones and not actually Richard Dawkins. Just Mike writting what he thinks Dawkins might say.

    I think Dawkins would just encourage the kids of think for themselves and examine the evidence.

  12. says

    Spurious monologues “in the voice of” famous people seems to be asking for problems with accurate quotage down the road. How about instead writing in one’s own voice, under one’s own name or pseudonym? To avoid contaminating the credibility of one of our great spokespersons.

  13. ThomasHobbes says

    In other news, decrepitoldfool, Johnathan Swift suggests that Irish babies make a tasty snack.

    Honestly, though: if you have such a problem with satire, much of the world’s great comedy will be inaccessible to you. And that’s a terrible way to live.

  14. ThomasHobbes says

    To follow up for clarity:

    Why do I judge that you would have a general problem with satire? Because (and I don’t mean to insult your intelligence with this, just to make the point clear) satire usually involves distortions, exaggerations, over-the-top ideas, etc. Anyone who disagrees with the entity being attacked–and is not smart enough to realize the nature of the text, or is dishonest enough to ignore it–could then use that text to “bolster” their position.

    Trying to avoid that misrepresentation by not using parody or satire would doom the technique to extinction, and for me that is a serious loss. I, for one, will not play down the level of the people I oppose ideologically (creationists, IDer’s, take your pick) by worrying about what form their ignorance will take.

  15. says

    Maybe I didn’t check the context carefully enough but this didn’t appear to be satire. The author didn’t seem to be opposed to Dawkins’ message, and seemed to be trying to avoid the distortions, exaggerations, and over-the-top ideas that distinguish satire. It seemed like he was really trying to write in Dawkins’ voice.

    My concern was along the lines of fake quotes that dominionists are always tossing around from Thomas Jefferson or George Washington’s “prayer diary”, etc. It’s a constant battle to clean up the distortions.

    One truly satirical (and hilarious) portrayal of Dawkins that comes to mind is in South Park.

    “But it wasn’t until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn’t enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn’t think like you.” (voice of sentient sea otter)

    That IS how the religious right sees Dawkins but I think they’re projecting just the teeniest little bit.

  16. Humboldt says

    Mssg t Dwkns: h ds nt hv mnply n trth.
    Kp wy frm my kds.
    Tht gs fr ll f y.
    N cmprms n ths wll b ccptd.

  17. Graculus says

    Smelly Terror: You’d say that to 5 year olds? Seriously? Pfff. There’s a man who needs to learn how to write to his audience.

    Well, it assumes that they are an audience of average 5-year olds, not intelligent ones, so perhaps it was a bit simple. :-P

    I especially liked the shark monologue.

  18. Greg Peterson says

    That was very funny. And best of all, I can actually imagine Dawkins himself laughing at it. I’ve been impressed at how Dawkins posts material critical of him on his website…something I don’t see the other side doing very much. Any fear that this might be misquoted seems irrational. Sure, it could happen, but what are we supposed to do, stop being witty or self-deprecating or…HONEST…just because some buttwipes might twist the meaning? That would just mean the terrorists had won.

  19. says

    I bet Humboldt will be circulating it around as Dawkins’ own words, and before long it will be part of the winger-canon of distorted Dawkins.

    It’s not a huge deal, it just didn’t strike me as particularly good satire because it wasn’t outrageous enough. It sounded too “straight” for my taste.