Worst. Satire. Ever.

Satire works when it exaggerates some truth — you see it in The Onion all the time. But there’s no truth in this article, so I don’t understand the humor.

Based on initial behavior, it was clear that the professors and students in attendance expected and wanted Dr. Welland to annihilate Dr. Ham with the scientific evidence. Unfortunately for Dr. Welland, that is not what happened.

The audio transcript makes it clear that while Dr. Welland answered questions by generally calling names and talking condescendingly, Dr. Ham simply presented the actual scientific evidence in a polite manner. As the debate wore on, it became clear to all that Dr. Welland was losing. Students began to file out of the auditorium. Dr. Welland began to sweat and became a bit nauseated. Dr. Ham continued to state devastating fact after devastating fact.

… Dr. Welland decided to end the debate early. As he sprinted off the stage, he was heard shouting, “I don’t want to hear any more facts! You can’t confuse me with the evidence!”

Or maybe this is funny… but for all the wrong reasons.

It’s the type of thing Creationists probably find hilarious while anyone who knows a shred of science will sit stonefaced.

I mean, we know Ken Ham, the brain behind the Creation Museum, doesn’t have any scientific evidence to present… and a scientist “talking condescendingly” is just Conservative Christian code for presenting highly supported data.

Here’s something funny: Some churchgoers will be forwarding this article to their friends as if its the greatest article they’ve read all day.

(via Tominthebox News Network)

  • medussa

    People see what they want and expect to see. It’s quite possible someone actually believes this is what happened in a debate.
    In extreme cases, we call this having hallucinations, and I tie them up in my ambulance and transport them to the nearest psych ward.

  • Chris

    From his biography –

    Ken’s bachelor’s degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) was awarded by the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia. He also holds a diploma of education from the University of Queensland (a graduate qualification necessary for Ken to begin his initial career as a science teacher in the public schools in Australia).

    In recognition of the contribution Ken has made to the church in the USA and internationally, Ken has been awarded two honorary doctorates: a Doctor of Divinity (1997) from Temple Baptist College in Cincinnati, Ohio and a Doctor of Literature (2004) from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.*

    How can you compete with that? I mean, he’s a Doctor for crying out loud!

    *Best. Satire. Ever.

  • http://infophilia.blogspot.com Infophile

    You know, a much better title for a satirical article would have been something along the lines of: “Creationist buries head in sand, finds fossil.”

  • David D.G.

    From the excerpt quoted above, it seems most likely that whoever is reporting the event had the two debaters’ identities transposed. It makes perfect sense if this is taken into account.

    ~David D.G.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Dr. Ham simply presented the actual scientific evidence in a polite manner.

    Polite or not, Ken Ham wouldn’t know scientific evidence if it bit him on the backside. His @#$@$ Creation Museum has a dinosaur with a saddle for crying out loud!

  • Reginald Selkirk

    talking condescendingly

    There’s a lot in this world that is worthy of condescension.

  • http://superstitionfree.blogspot.com Robert Madewell

    Actually, I think Ken Ham is the master of talking condescendingly.

  • Ben Bachman

    I’m confused. What is everyone so worked up about? The article IS from a satirical website.

  • Ian

    Dr Ham?

    There’s your first clue to the quality of his integrity right there!

  • http://eric-carpenter.blogspot.com Eric

    I’ve never seen satire get so many people upset within such a short period of time.

  • http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com tinyfrog

    Reminds me of the old “Big Daddy” chick tract from years ago (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp). Both of them read like indulgent fantasies written by creationists.

  • penguinsaur

    I’m confused. What is everyone so worked up about? The article IS from a satirical website.

    I think he meant that this obvious satire is going to be quotemined by some creationist on the internet within days and presented as a factual account.

  • stephangoodwin

    It’s funny because all but the most foolish will recognize it as false immediately, therefore bringing up the underlying concept that such debates are meaningless, because we know only one side comes to the debate with actual evidence.

    My lowly opinion on it, at least.

  • «bønez_brigade»

    tinyfrog, you nailed it. It’s really sad that it takes BigDaddyesque “satire” for Ham to be the victor in a debate. It speaks volumes for his position, though.

  • Don

    The thing is that it is not satire and it is not funny. Atheists can and do laugh at themselves. Take the “Dick to the Dawk” video that came out a while ago. Now that was funny and both Dawkins and P.Z. Myers said so.

  • Don

    Actually it was called “Beware the Believers” and it is here if you haven’t seen it.

  • Zar

    What are Ham’s devastating facts? “Bananas are tasty”?

  • http://atheistblogger.com Adrian Hayter

    Here’s some quotes from the author of the “satire” (found them in the comments of the article):

    “We creationists aren’t as ignorant as most atheists think we are.”

    “Why are atheists always so angry?”

    “For clarification purposes: this is a Christian, Reformed, satirical blog.”

    “Atheists spend a lot of time using creationists as a punching bag. I think what we see here is that when a few lowly creationists (like us) push back against the bully, he can’t take it.”

    So yeah, worse satire ever.

  • Pingback: I Get Email… God vs Science « Tiny Frog


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X