If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Panda's Thumb)   Not news: "Scientist" from the Discovery Institute gives talk on "intelligent design" while sitting in her lab that confuses basic concepts. Obvious: She was sitting in front of a green screen, the lab was a stock photo   (pandasthumb.org) divider line 67
    More: Fail, Discovery Institute, Tute, stock photos, health effects of tobacco, polymerase chain reactions, Lee Atwater, laboratory, intelligent design  
•       •       •

7084 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Dec 2012 at 8:00 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-20 06:31:39 PM  
 
2012-12-20 07:28:13 PM  

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: You say that as if green screen technology is a BAD thing. (pops, not the Countdown)


Thanks so much for brightening our final day.
 
2012-12-20 07:37:42 PM  

Radak: Thanks so much for brightening our final day.


Aw, shucks.

It's the least that I could do in the face of a planet-destroying apocalypse and all.
 
2012-12-20 08:12:00 PM  
Just wait until they start using something like this on clips taken from actual experts: Link

The scary part is if you weren't looking for those little jitters and speed shifts, you might not even catch it.
 
2012-12-20 08:16:04 PM  
Their production qualities are higher than their scientific qualities.

Wanna take a tour of a real science lab with Thunderf00t? iPod in a Nuclear Reactor Beam
 
2012-12-20 08:22:02 PM  
Does anyone with an IQ higher than potato take the Dicovery Institute seriously?
 
2012-12-20 08:22:41 PM  
And of course I had to include a typo in that jab.
 
2012-12-20 08:40:59 PM  
In my last English class for community college my teacher showed us Expelled: No intelligence allowed. We were supposed to do a review thingy on the argument it presented. I spent my entire paper destroying the movie/discovery institute. I don't hate many things but fark those "scientists".
/csb yeah yeah
 
2012-12-20 08:41:58 PM  
Why do you put "scientist" in quotations, subby? The Discovery Institute has their own peer-reviewed journal! It even has articles! Multiple articles! In fact, this journal has published seven hard hitting research articles since 2010! And some of the authors even show up multiple times, meaning that the journal was so good they decided that they wanted to come back and get published again!

Moreover, if you read the abstracts, you'll see that not only are there hard-hitting theoretical papers with titles like A Tetrahedral Representation of the Genetic Code Emphasizing Aspects of Symmetry, but one of the papers even involves an experiment! Obviously they are totally legitimate scienticians! Shame on you subby.
 
2012-12-20 08:51:05 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: Why do you put "scientist" in quotations, subby? The Discovery Institute has their own peer-reviewed journal! It even has articles! Multiple articles! In fact, this journal has published seven hard hitting research articles since 2010! And some of the authors even show up multiple times, meaning that the journal was so good they decided that they wanted to come back and get published again!


Oh god, thanks for that. I didn't know they had their own journal.
I'll probably chuckle all night
 
2012-12-20 09:20:56 PM  
Whole thing is crying out for a parody along the lines of the Monty Python sketch with John Cleese and his "machine that goes BING!"
You don't win wars against these people with facts.

You do win battles by laughing at them.
 
2012-12-20 09:23:16 PM  

whatshisname: Does anyone with an IQ higher than potato take the Dicovery Institute seriously?


Yeah, that "e" in "potatoe" will get you every time.
 
2012-12-20 09:26:08 PM  

Raoul Eaton: whatshisname: Does anyone with an IQ higher than potato take the Dicovery Institute seriously?

Yeah, that "e" in "potatoe" will get you every time.


Great. I meant to reply to your next post. Now what I said makes no sense at all.

///if it ever did
 
2012-12-20 09:40:52 PM  
Actually, this is a pretty good metaphor for Intelligent Design.
 
2012-12-20 09:45:54 PM  

The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Actually, this is a pretty good metaphor for Intelligent Design.


Morons or fakring morons? Teach the controversy.
 
2012-12-20 09:48:45 PM  

whatshisname: Does anyone with an IQ higher than potato take the Dicovery Institute seriously?


I think the upper IQ limit for creationism belief is somewhere between "rhubarb" and "ficus".
 
2012-12-20 09:57:03 PM  
Is the headline stating that the stock photo was of a lab that confuses basic concepts?
 
2012-12-20 09:57:55 PM  
How does the lab confuse basic concepts?
 
2012-12-20 10:05:48 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: Why do you put "scientist" in quotations, subby? The Discovery Institute has their own peer-reviewed journal! It even has articles! Multiple articles! In fact, this journal has published seven hard hitting research articles since 2010! And some of the authors even show up multiple times, meaning that the journal was so good they decided that they wanted to come back and get published again!


That's taking tautaulogy to whole new levels of derp. Nice find.

wildcardjack: Their production qualities are higher than their scientific qualities.

Wanna take a tour of a real science lab with Thunderf00t? iPod in a Nuclear Reactor Beam


It was a real shame he couldn't do the live stream like he wanted to. Still, that was a pretty cool thing to watch. Big ups to the folks in charge fo the reactor for letting him take the camera right into the heart of things.
 
2012-12-20 10:15:44 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: How does the lab confuse basic concepts?


I think subby missed a word. Probably interview. As the interviewee appeared to completely confuse and mix up two different areas of research/techniques: phylogenetics and population genetics. Granted they are both sub areas of evolutionary biology, and they are related but still.

It's basically a perfect example of the Discovery Institute's approach to everything...

Confused at an elementary level and outright liars.
 
2012-12-20 10:20:14 PM  
I am sure that plenty of creationists own a lab:

farm9.static.flickr.com
 
2012-12-20 10:23:59 PM  

Cpl.D: whatshisname: Does anyone with an IQ higher than potato take the Dicovery Institute seriously?

I think the upper IQ limit for creationism belief is somewhere between "rhubarb" and "ficus".


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-20 10:43:42 PM  

mjjt: Whole thing is crying out for a parody along the lines of the Monty Python sketch with John Cleese and his "machine that goes BING!"
You don't win wars against these people with facts.

You do win battles by laughing at them.


The first thing that Dr Kramer came up with was that the penguin has a much smaller brain than the man. This postulate formed the fundamental basis of all his thinking and remained with him until his death. Now we've taken this theory one stage further. If we increase the size of the penguin until it is the same height as the man and then compare the relative brain size, we now find that the penguin's brain is still smaller. But, and this is the point, it is larger than it was.

Python's Frontiers of Medical Science skit fits pretty well with this "science."
 
2012-12-20 10:48:07 PM  
I just spent several minutes staring at the background photo, trying to figure out how the lab confuses basic concepts.
Couldn't figure out which concepts of laboratory design, safety, etc. were being violated...
Didn't figure out until I came back that's not what subby meant....

/Derp
 
2012-12-20 10:52:31 PM  

entropic_existence: .

It's basically a perfect example of the Discovery Institute's approach to everything...

Confused at an elementary level and outright liars.


Best description of the DI I can think of is a bunch of lawyers and fringe scientists desperately trying to change the definitions of biological research. Hell these asswipes won't even defend this crap under oath.
 
2012-12-20 11:13:58 PM  
Why wouldn't you use a fake lab if you're doing fake science?
 
2012-12-20 11:19:15 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: I am sure that plenty of creationists own a lab:


Possibly even a confused lab:
ak.scr.imgfarm.com
 
2012-12-20 11:31:48 PM  
Why would any woman be an advocate of Intelligent Design?

By what metric of mental gymnastics does she use to argue that a concerted intelligence was behind the dissolution of her uterine cavity on a monthly basis? I have yet to meet a single woman who sincerely enjoys this part about being a woman. What's her excuse?
 
2012-12-21 12:03:02 AM  

Ishkur: By what metric of mental gymnastics does she use to argue that a concerted intelligence was behind the dissolution of her uterine cavity on a monthly basis?


It's Eve's fault. Things were perfect until she disobeyed God and ate the wrong piece of magical fruit.

(You've never met people who believe this? I envy you)
 
2012-12-21 02:37:21 AM  
I walk by DI's downtown Seattle office every week. Perhaps I shall drop in to what they have in the way of lab space
 
2012-12-21 04:01:56 AM  

Martian_Astronomer: The Discovery Institute has their own peer-reviewed journal!


Oh, thanks, I didn't want to sleep for the next two days anyhow.

//That's more addictively stupid than Conservapedia, looks like.
//The true mark of quality content is when a periodical is given to you for free with no advertising. That's why I get all my world news from my cousin's Christmas family newsletter.
 
2012-12-21 08:12:25 AM  
New media rule: "someone who doesn't understand a subject should not be treated as an authority on that subject".

/this should bring an end to pointless banter on many issues.
/evolution, global warming, gun grabbing, the fiscal cliff, etc....
 
2012-12-21 08:36:23 AM  

Dimensio: Is the headline stating that the stock photo was of a lab that confuses basic concepts?


The beakers weren't placed in ascending order of volume from left to right.
 
2012-12-21 09:39:42 AM  
That headline made my head hurt
 
2012-12-21 09:47:38 AM  
And what a shiat greenscreen too. I guess creationists are just as good at lighting as they are at science.
 
2012-12-21 10:09:51 AM  

zerkalo: I walk by DI's downtown Seattle office every week. Perhaps I shall drop in to what they have in the way of lab space


A few years ago a friend and I entered the Discovery Institutes offices mostly as a goof, but we tried to apply for jobs. It was just a bunch of stupid offices and really anticlimactic actually. We were hoping to encounter William Dembski or someone notable so we could challenge their BS. No such luck.
 
2012-12-21 10:53:50 AM  
Meh. Green screen backgrounds are very common in interviews. I'm more offended by how badly it was done. Here's what a correctly lit one looks like.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0074rz9
 
2012-12-21 10:58:02 AM  
Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?
 
2012-12-21 11:28:43 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?


Hurr durr herr derr hurr herr der.

/There is it. You speak derp, right?
 
2012-12-21 11:29:25 AM  
ahem. There it is.

/apparently I do too.
 
2012-12-21 11:37:12 AM  

HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?

Hurr durr herr derr hurr herr der.

/There is it. You speak derp, right?


No I don't. I assume you gave me your reason in derp, but I must respectfully ask you to supply it in English.
 
2012-12-21 12:24:54 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?

Hurr durr herr derr hurr herr der.

/There is it. You speak derp, right?

No I don't. I assume you gave me your reason in derp, but I must respectfully ask you to supply it in English.


Climatology is science, intelligent design is the opposite of science.
 
2012-12-21 12:32:57 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?


I think it's harder to think of any reasons why they would be remotely similar. They aren't even the same category.


Climatology is a scientific field that studies climate and weather patterns and conditions, especially over periods of time.

Intelligent Design is a scientific theory in the field of biology that postulates that life is too intricate to have occurred naturally so therefore must have had an intelligent agent involved in its creation readily acceptable as the Judeo-Christian God because, well, just because.


Why would you equate the two at all?
 
2012-12-21 01:27:12 PM  

Ishkur: THE GREAT NAME: Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?

I think it's harder to think of any reasons why they would be remotely similar. They aren't even the same category.


Climatology is a scientific field that studies climate and weather patterns and conditions, especially over periods of time.

Intelligent Design is a scientific theory in the field of biology that postulates that life is too intricate to have occurred naturally so therefore must have had an intelligent agent involved in its creation readily acceptable as the Judeo-Christian God because, well, just because.


Why would you equate the two at all?


Stop waffling and get on with v3
 
2012-12-21 01:28:03 PM  

HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?

Hurr durr herr derr hurr herr der.

/There is it. You speak derp, right?

No I don't. I assume you gave me your reason in derp, but I must respectfully ask you to supply it in English.

Climatology is science, intelligent design is the opposite of science.


Give me one reason to believe climatology is a science.
 
2012-12-21 01:32:50 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?


Yeah, sure - intelligent design is a discredited theory about biology, while climatology is a widely-accepted theory about the atmospheric conditions of the planet. There's two reasons why they're different - 1) one's biology, the other is earth science and 2) one is wrong and the other is right
 
2012-12-21 01:33:56 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?

Hurr durr herr derr hurr herr der.

/There is it. You speak derp, right?

No I don't. I assume you gave me your reason in derp, but I must respectfully ask you to supply it in English.

Climatology is science, intelligent design is the opposite of science.

Give me one reason to believe climatology is a science.


No. *plonk*
 
2012-12-21 02:13:30 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?

Hurr durr herr derr hurr herr der.

/There is it. You speak derp, right?

No I don't. I assume you gave me your reason in derp, but I must respectfully ask you to supply it in English.

Climatology is science, intelligent design is the opposite of science.

Give me one reason to believe climatology is a science.


Invalid comparison on the face of it. One is a theory, the other is a field of study. You could ask why Darwinism is a sound scientific theory and Intelligent Design isn't. You could ask why climatology is a science but theology isn't. Trying to compare across groups is meaningless.
 
2012-12-21 02:43:12 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?

Hurr durr herr derr hurr herr der.

/There is it. You speak derp, right?

No I don't. I assume you gave me your reason in derp, but I must respectfully ask you to supply it in English.

Climatology is science, intelligent design is the opposite of science.

Give me one reason to believe climatology is a science.


I'm not convinced that you and reason get along, but here goes: Climatology inherently relies on the scientific method.

You may not like the hypotheses that are tested or the results that are generated, but it's silly to dispute whether the process is scientific. And if you can't see it as in any way different than jumping to the conclusion one starts with (i.e., god did it, a la intelligent design), then you really should read up on the subject.
 
2012-12-21 03:21:10 PM  
The video definitely seems legit. TruTV level legit.
i.cdn.turner.com
I was waiting for her to be shopped in behind the wheel of a monster truck that rolls over.
 
2012-12-21 04:03:40 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Stop waffling and get on with v3


Yes sir, right away sir.

/where does Stereo MCs go anyway?
//or Renegade Soundwave?
///or Frou Frou?
 
2012-12-21 04:08:27 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Give me one reason to believe climatology is a science.


Science is a process for studying the natural world and its faculties. It is not dogma -- it is a methodology.

Climatology is the science of studying weather patterns and changes in the Earth's atmospheric composition over time. Irrespective of whether the conclusions published or correct or not, the process of studying the climate still makes it a bonafied science.
 
2012-12-21 05:14:31 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: Why do you put "scientist" in quotations, subby?


Actually, I looked her up and I do take exception to the scare quotes.

Ann Gauger is a zoologist with a BS in biology from MIT and a 1989 PhD from the University of Washington. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

1. As James Randi said, "a PhD is not an inoculation against foolishness".
2. Being a scientist is not like being part of a priesthood. Many scientists, even prominent ones who have done very good work in the past, say and do remarkably stupid things. It is a vital feature of science that the dumb things get shunted aside and the things that work become part of the core, but the individuals are pretty poor at doing this.
3. It is important to note that the Discovery Institute is apparently attempting to ramp up their cred. This is fine, since attacks on the credibility of their people should never have been the focus anyway. Attack their shiatty and worthless science instead, how it ignores evidence. Way too easy of a victory for them if you chase your tail going "she's not a REAL scientist".
4. The photo thing is still pretty farking funny.
 
2012-12-21 05:39:35 PM  
If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.
 
2012-12-21 05:45:02 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.


Well, of course you can because you've already seen the life that can exist.

Let's see you try doing it from SCRATCH.... with nothing existing to give you any inspiration. Then see how well you fare.

You think this Universe building shiat is easy?
 
2012-12-21 05:50:36 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.


Designing is easy, I don't know why everyone gets hung up on that part. It's always the implementation that gets you.
 
2012-12-21 05:55:12 PM  

Ishkur: Keizer_Ghidorah: If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.

Well, of course you can because you've already seen the life that can exist.

Let's see you try doing it from SCRATCH.... with nothing existing to give you any inspiration. Then see how well you fare.

You think this Universe building shiat is easy?


Hey, I'd have enough foresight to make life forms that can adapt very quickly, and to not run the waste-disposal channel through a recreational area.

ProfessorOhki: Keizer_Ghidorah: If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.

Designing is easy, I don't know why everyone gets hung up on that part. It's always the implementation that gets you.


Which makes you wonder how many times the designer reset the universe because he goofed.
 
2012-12-21 05:58:08 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Ishkur: Keizer_Ghidorah: If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.

Well, of course you can because you've already seen the life that can exist.

Let's see you try doing it from SCRATCH.... with nothing existing to give you any inspiration. Then see how well you fare.

You think this Universe building shiat is easy?

Hey, I'd have enough foresight to make life forms that can adapt very quickly, and to not run the waste-disposal channel through a recreational area.

ProfessorOhki: Keizer_Ghidorah: If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.

Designing is easy, I don't know why everyone gets hung up on that part. It's always the implementation that gets you.

Which makes you wonder how many times the designer reset the universe because he goofed.


I don't know, but after the first few, he/she/it became exceedingly efficient at it.
 
2012-12-21 06:02:22 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Keizer_Ghidorah: Ishkur: Keizer_Ghidorah: If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.

Well, of course you can because you've already seen the life that can exist.

Let's see you try doing it from SCRATCH.... with nothing existing to give you any inspiration. Then see how well you fare.

You think this Universe building shiat is easy?

Hey, I'd have enough foresight to make life forms that can adapt very quickly, and to not run the waste-disposal channel through a recreational area.

ProfessorOhki: Keizer_Ghidorah: If we were intelligently designed, the designer was NOT very intelligent. I can come up with much better life forms and I'm just a mere human.

Designing is easy, I don't know why everyone gets hung up on that part. It's always the implementation that gets you.

Which makes you wonder how many times the designer reset the universe because he goofed.

I don't know, but after the first few, he/she/it became exceedingly efficient at it.


Not really. Life forms are still quite inefficient at many things, not to mention the waste-disposal channel through the recreational area problem.
 
2012-12-21 06:05:12 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: ProfessorOhki:
Which makes you wonder how many times the designer reset the universe because he goofed.

I don't know, but after the first few, he/she/it became exceedingly efficient at it.

Not really. Life forms are still quite inefficient at many things, not to mention the waste-disposal channel through the recreational area problem.


Oh c'mon, that one wasn't even remotely obscure.
htmlgiant.com

/hot
 
2012-12-21 06:10:01 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Keizer_Ghidorah: ProfessorOhki:
Which makes you wonder how many times the designer reset the universe because he goofed.

I don't know, but after the first few, he/she/it became exceedingly efficient at it.

Not really. Life forms are still quite inefficient at many things, not to mention the waste-disposal channel through the recreational area problem.

Oh c'mon, that one wasn't even remotely obscure.
[htmlgiant.com image 615x345]

/hot


Never saw The Matrix.
 
2012-12-21 06:39:12 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, I'd have enough foresight to make life forms that can adapt very quickly, and to not run the waste-disposal channel through a recreational area.


It's a perfectly fine model of efficiency that eliminates redundancy. Why have three orifices when the same tasks can be accomplished with two?
 
2012-12-21 06:58:17 PM  

Ishkur: Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, I'd have enough foresight to make life forms that can adapt very quickly, and to not run the waste-disposal channel through a recreational area.

It's a perfectly fine model of efficiency that eliminates redundancy. Why have three orifices when the same tasks can be accomplished with two?


Platypuses only have the one orifice and, as we all know, are the most convincing proof of ID. Well, more of "crap, I only have enough parts for one more critter and they don't line up," design really.
 
2012-12-21 07:24:45 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Platypuses only have the one orifice and, as we all know, are the most convincing proof of ID. Well, more of "crap, I only have enough parts for one more critter and they don't line up," design really.


The Platypus is God saying "I'm putting tobasco sauce, cayenne, nutmeg, oregano, basil, paprika and garlic salt in my chocolate mousse and you can't stop me!"
 
2012-12-21 07:48:54 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?

Hurr durr herr derr hurr herr der.

/There is it. You speak derp, right?

No I don't. I assume you gave me your reason in derp, but I must respectfully ask you to supply it in English.

Climatology is science, intelligent design is the opposite of science.

Give me one reason to believe climatology is a science.


If you understood what science was, you would understand that no one can give you any reason to "believe" that something is or isn't science, and that science doesn't care if you "believe" it or not.
 
2012-12-21 08:45:43 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Never saw The Matrix.


It was a great movie.
Too bad they never made any sequels.
 
2012-12-22 09:34:24 AM  

way south: Keizer_Ghidorah: Never saw The Matrix.

It was a great movie.
Too bad they never made any sequels.


I would've been happy if they took that scene (and a few Monica Bellucci cleavage shots) and somehow shoehorned it into the original.
 
Displayed 67 of 67 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report