Roger Ebert Gives Creationism Four Stars? September 22, 2008

Roger Ebert Gives Creationism Four Stars?

***Update***: Ebert has written than the article mentioned below was an attempt (albeit a poor one) at satire.

Considering that film critic Roger Ebert has defended evolution in the past, it seems odd that an essay in defense of Creationism is on his site right now…

Questions and answers on Creationism, which should be discussed in schools as an alternative to the theory of evolution:

Q. When was the earth created?

A. Archbishop James Usher, working out a chronology from the Bible, calculated in 1654 that the earth was created on the night of October 23, 4004 B.C. Other timetables reach back as far as 10,000 years.

Q. Was there a Noah, and did he have an Ark?

A. Certainly. There are many unverified reports of a massive wooden vessel on Mount Ararat. The Arc contained eight people, from whom we are all descended. It also contained two of each kind of animal. Since living species were obviously not created through an evolutionary process, every surviving land-based mammal species (about 5,400) had both ancestors on the Arc.

I assume his site’s been hacked. I don’t know what the hackers would get out of doing this, though…

And if it’s satire, I don’t get the humor.

Ebert’s too smart to believe any of this. I’m not putting much stock into it.

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • It would not at all surprise me if Ebert thinks the idiocy speaks for itself.

  • Axegrrl

    Someone over at the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe forum already posted this:

    which makes the article/essay you posted above appear to be satire/parody of some sort ~ weird though.

  • prospero52742

    Whoever the culprit, he or she misspelled Ussher.

  • lurker_above

    I call bullshit. Ebert is a much better writer and thinker than is evidenced by this dreck.

  • Gadren

    Is it really that hard to see the satire?

    Q. How long did the Great Flood last?

    A. We know that Noah was 600 years, two months and 17 days old when he sailed. Using that as a starting point and counting forward, Genesis tells us it lasted for 40, 150, 253, 314 or 370 days.

    Besides, Ebert was raised Roman Catholic and self-identifies as an agnostic now.

    Oh, and read this old 2005 column from him:

    Evolution is indeed a theory. Creationism is a belief, not a theory. In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and the challenge of opposing views. It is not simply somebody’s notion about something. The creationist belief cannot withstand such tests and challenges; it exists outside the world of science altogether.


    Fundamentalism denies this majestic idea and substitutes God as a magician who created everything more or less as it is now, all at once or very quickly. Dinosaur bones, geologic strata and carbon dating, by providing evidence that seems to contradict their beliefs, are a test of faith.

  • I think the picture and it’s caption are enough to show it’s satire. The fossil is millions of years old, thereby proving a shoe wearing man lived with dinosaurs (but creationists don’t even believe that fossils are millions of years old! Contradiction!)

  • If nothing else indicated satire, check out the last bit:

    Q. Why would God create such an absurd creature as a moose?

    A. In charity, we must observe that the moose probably does not seem absurd to itself.

  • QrazyQat

    Sounded like dry satire to me when I read it. Just as actually reading the Bible has weaned many a fundie off religion, so too actually reading what creationists believe is a great argument against creationism. Lots of people don’t know just what the belief they hold says — seems crazy to me, sure, but I know it’s so — and reading what it is the belief says is enough to jar a lot from the fold, as well as alearting others to how really loony the belief is.

  • Kiski

    Poe’s Law states:

    “Without a blatant display of humour, it is impossible to tell the difference between religious fundamentalism and a parody thereof.”

  • lynn

    Poe’s law, yes, but there are a couple choice words that make it clear it’s satire.

    I think it’s more meant to point out how stupid it is just by stating it plainly. Amazing how easy that is to do with religious beliefs.

error: Content is protected !!