That's Ebert's mistake. He presented a plain statement of creationist beliefs with satirical intent, but that intent cannot possibly be scene [sic] in a world where millions say exactly the same things with sincerity.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Myers on Satire
PZ Myers critiques Ebert's satirical presentation of creationism.
3 comments:
Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.
With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.
No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.
See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.
Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.
I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.
Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.
I've already answered some typical comments.
I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"...but that intent cannot possibly be scene [sic] in a world where millions say exactly the same things with sincerity."
ReplyDeleteIf the Great Flood answer wasn't enough of a hint, surely the fossil pic at the top of the article, which clearly features the imprint of a shoe, would have been hard to miss.
As Myers notes, it's not good satire to simply repeat stupid beliefs. There really are cretinists so stupid as to say everything that Ebert said.
ReplyDeleteYes, and I suppose there are plenty of less than intellectually discerning folks who would take Ricky Gervais' commentary on creationism to be a scholarly lecture on biology. Perhaps Ebert's blog post, and Gervais' stand-up bit, are less satire and more of an intelligence test focused on critical thinking, found subtly humorous by those in the know?
ReplyDeleteMaybe the satire would have been much clearer if Ebert had made a video of himself singing his post. Sort of the opposite approach of Steve Allen's old routine of reading song lyrics at lectern? Hmmm...probably just more tortuous.