Steel cage death-match, brother! You bring the thumbtacks, and I'll bring Mick Foley as a human shield!

I'm not sure about these tags.

Sorry! Next time, I'll promise to make more redundant, unusable tags. 2evolution2awesome!

WITCH!

Dawkins isn't nearly as bad as the South Park guys want to make him seem. Either way, if you enjoyed this video, I think you'll also like the cut of Ken Miller's jib:

http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=49980

And it's rather odd to be called a douche for your opinions by two guys who animate their opinions, often in a way fraught with douchebaggery, on cable TV several times a year.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Spoken like someone who has never, ever read anything by Dawkins, certainly none of his scientific books, and who has never listened to anything Dawkins has had to say on the subject of creationism and evolution for more than 30 seconds.

But, yeah, he OFFENDED some religious people! What a douche! Maybe if he were nicer about criticizing them, they'd stop sending his family death threats every day! GOD WHAT A DOUCHE.

The South Park guys are huge cunts. They are good friends with Penn Jillette! PENN JILLETTE! When are they going to make a episode about HIM?

They're the usual agnostic-libertarians douchebags. When was the last time they made fun of agnostics, or libertarians?

I did NOT call Dawkins a doucheshit. I said he COMES OFF as one. There's a difference. If you're right, all you have to do is present the facts, and if someone's not willing to accept them, then you brush them off and go on to someone who's not an idiot. If you spend your time telling the idiot they're an idiot, all that does is make said idiot go on the defense, and if a 3rd party sees you doing this, they're going to go "Dude! They don't get it! They're NEVER going to get it! You're coming off as a doucheshit! Quit wasting your time on them!"
And for the record, I don't base my opinion of him on the South Park episode.

Are you guys saying Dawkins doesn't come across as a douchebag? Cuz I think I've seen all his docs and several lectures and while I think he's brilliant, he's totally a pompus d-bag. It's just his way.

Dawkins has a British accent which makes him sound snooty, and he isn't hesitant to say wrong is wrong. Beyond that, he is polite in how he speaks his mind, and unlike the other side he's not an inveterate liar.

Also: how mean is it to say that creationism is "crazy" like in the title of this video?

"she uses pure science and reason to shoot down creationism *without* coming off as a doucheshit"

What science and reason? Did we watch the same video? She gave a rapid and simplistic overview of legal and legislative initiatives, while constantly snickering in a superior and self satisfied manner. There wasn't a drop of science or reason in the entire video. 4 stars because she's right and has every right to snicker. -1 because Dawkins might be insufferable but at least he learns ya something. He's a frontline asshole who treats this like life and death and draws blood.

You know what? Minus another 1, because these titles are ludicrous. Some of us actually have to be out there arguing with people who really believe the earth is 6000 years old and there once was a shell of ice encasing the atmosphere and dinosaurs are really just huge iguanas and the Grand Canyon couldn't have formed slowly because water would have had to flow uphill and the Moon would have been touching the earth a million years ago, and these people are our friends and coworkers who we can't just bloody well go "YOU'RE CRAZY AND WRONG HUR HUR" and leave it at that. I have to counter this crap point by point, and explain what science is and isn't on top of that, like I've got to read Popper and Kuhn and shit like that in my spare time, and the more I do the more I sympathize with these poor bastards and their damn ignorance. I hate to tell you this, Mz Edumactor, but you and your kind (i.e. the bespectacled snickerers) have soundly failed to teach the majority of Americans the basic, basic principles of good scientific practice. Your semantic wrangling over what is and isn't free speech is irrelevant: the second they get out of your grasp free speech rules, and the rest of us have to step up and fight this battle one to one. A goddamn century you've had evolution taught as truth in classroom, and what do you have to show for it? If we go by the numbers: diddlysquat. I'm almost ready to say, let them have their disclaimers and alternative theories, and maybe people will finally see how paper thin and patently false they are. What are you afraid of? That you might actually have to put some work in? "What if our textbooks are wrong?! How can we teach if we can't just follow the text blindly and assign reading for homework??!! OOOH NOOOO."

"Still Crazy After All These Years" should properly read "Better Organized Than Ever And Cunning Like Foxes." Or, sorry, properly it should be titled, "A Brief Overview of Recent Creationist/I.D. Proponent Legal Strategies in the Field of Education," but I suppose that doesn't have quite enough partisan smugness to sell a book.

...

+1 for amusing slides.

I concede to you, allcaps. Without using a single straw-man, you gave me a sound, reasonable, and fully justified beating. Bravo.

And yes, the slides are amusing, are they not?

Ah, comments about Dawkins from before his actual shittiness came to light.

That should've been a reply.