Introducing “The Drool Zone”

[30-second sound clip] You are about to leave reality and travel into another dimension — a dimension of the mind, a dimension that exists beyond the laws of nature, unknowable by evidence and reason — a wondrous land of Oogity Boogity! You have embarked on a journey into the realm of miracles and mysticism, where your only guide is faith. There’s a signpost up ahead: Next stop — The Drool Zone.

We started a couple of recent posts with an earlier version of that introduction, and now we’d like to make it a permanent feature. But we’re not yet certain of how and when to use it.

We already have sections of this blog for letters-to-the-editor (Creationist Wisdom), creationist legislation and litigation (The Controversy), and for the usual creationist websites we visit. Almost everything we write about — except straight science news and our occasional posts about politics — could be categorized in The Drool Zone. In retrospect, it would have been a good name for the whole blog, but it already has a name.

So what kind of posts– if any — should we introduce with that boxed language you see above? We can’t use it all the time, because it’ll get old, but we like it too much to put it aside forever. Besides, we never got tired of the introduction to the Twilight Zone TV show.

If you have any suggestions, we’d like to hear from you. Otherwise, feel free to use the comments as a Intellectual Free-Fire Zone. We now throw open the comments to you, dear reader. Have at it.

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

16 responses to “Introducing “The Drool Zone”

  1. Excellent!

    I think it could be the intermittent series reserved for the especially egregious claims of, say, Georgia Purdom, and the particularly mind-boggling of Dr. Michael “Apes are more similar to viruses than they are to man” Egnor.

    But it would be nice to find a more Serling-like title, though I can’t think what. Here’s a list of ones that don’t quite do it:

    The LieBright Zone
    The SciBlight ZONE
    The LightsOut Zone
    The TwitSh*t Zone

    Maybe other perusers of your distinguished organ can suggest one that works?

  2. David Williams This is a map of supposed chapters of the Discoveroid IDEA centers. Many of the so called chapters do not exist. I wonder how long the Discoveroid Institute can last. Many of their projects , such as IDEA centers have been flops.

  3. Megalonyx says: “Maybe other perusers of your distinguished organ can suggest one that works?”

    I can’t quite figure it out, but I don’t like that sentence.

  4. Ceteris Paribus

    When the subject at hand is just too droolicious to be introduced by mere words, the use of the sound clip should be a quite appropriate warning.

    But after the sound clip is over, there is the question of how to transition to words. One ploy might involve use of “apophasis”, which is the rhetorical device of denying that the subject should even be brought up at all.

    But “apophasis” has kind of a clinical sound to it. Like something that is contagious if proper precautions are not taken. Hmm. How about just follow the sound clip with a disclaimer that the subject is not really capable of being expressed in words? In other words, just tell us that the root cause of the drool is “ineffable”. But all of that is a lot of work to go to.

    Probably best to just play us the sound clip, and then mention that the subject matter that follows is really just plain “effed”.

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    Drool zone is for those attempting to ride on the coattails of creationism, especially politicians. Kind of a play on O’Reilly’s ‘Spin Zone’, perhaps. Really I was thinking it could be the sound track of Ben Carson posts, but I think those will be going away, hopefully soon.

  6. Charles Deetz proposes

    Drool zone is for those attempting to ride on the coattails of creationism, especially politicians.

    That’s good–but I think that political wingnuttery needs a slightly different format, to wit:

    There is nothing wrong with your computer screen. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and think. You are about to experience the blather and hysteria which reaches from the inner empty mind to –


  7. Actually, that probably should be,

    “–blather and hysteria which reaches from the empty mind to–”

  8. And a stunning observation I offer up here for the IFFZ:

    This cold morning, after yesterday’s rain, I awoke to find that the puddles of water on the road and been transformed as if by magic!

    Last night, these puddles were filled with molecules of water, all whizzing around randomly, wholly undirected. But lo! This morning I find these puddles are solid, all the molecules symmetrically arranged in a specific crystalline lattice of exquisite complexity! So the glaring question for all you atheistical baby-aborting cannibalistic Darwinists is

    Where did that new Information come from?

    For all the water molecules to so arrange themselves without a fresh input of Information is clearly impossible without the existence of an Intelligent Designer!

    Of course, we can say nothing about the identity of that Intelligent Designer (nudge nudge, wink wink) even though it is blindingly obvious it can only be Jack Frost

  9. And also for the IFFZ, a further snook to cock at all you pathetic materialists and deniers of Oogity Boogity:

    The good news is: I have proof that Winnie-the-Pooh is real!!!

    But the bad news is: The skull of Winnie-the-Pooh goes on display

    Sic transit gloria ursi…

  10. Given that YEC pedders fool almost no one who isn’t already fooled, and that committed YECs are only ~10% of adult Americans, I’m much more interested in the ID scam, which has, directly or indirectly, fooled as much as 70% into thinking that there are at least “some problems” with evolution. The Dembski thread reminded me of what Ken Miller wrote in “Only a Theory” (my paraphrase): that the anti-evolution movement has succeeded in uniting evolution deniers (& I would add potential deniers) while dividing critics. 8 years later that’s still a seriously unhealthy situation.

    I’m often misinterpreted when I say that we need to be the ones to “divide and conquer,” by exposing the embarrassing contractions, as well as lack of evidence, for all those failed “alternatives.” Certainly the 10% committed YECs, and another ~20% OEC (but also scriptural literalist) will not start debating each other, or leave the cozy “big tent.” But the uncommitted 30-50%, either unsure or “leaning against” evolution, might start to see how absurd the “alternatives” are, and consider real science at least “the least absurd.”

    Those “fence sitters” don’t want to hear that “creationism” is religious or that “ID ‘is’ creationism,” if only because they know that already. Some even know how “scientific” creationism “magically” morphed into ID right after Edwards v Aguillard, and those that don’t, tend react with “so what, let them believe.” That’s just what the ID scammers want. We won’t start budging towards a majority until people on the street start wondering: “I can understand why IDers omit ‘creator’ language and the designer’s identity, but why would they omit all the testable ‘what happened when’ claims that are perfectly legal to teach in public school science class? Could it be that they really don’t believe?”

  11. Whatever you do, makes sure you insert the word “on” after “embark” in the second sentence.

  12. Perhaps a direct approach is best.
    Science Denial Zone
    Science Illiteracy Zone
    Pi equals Three Region
    Snake Handler Science Zone
    Logic Evasion Zone
    Second Law of Thermodynamics Galaxy

  13. Thanks, Mark Germano. It’s fixed.

  14. I still think you need another syllable.

    The Drool-Pool Zone, perhaps?

    Or: Drool-Rules Zone? Drool-Fools Groans?

  15. michaelfugate

    The people who bother me are the ones who play off their credentials and continue to spout what they have to know is nonsense. How many MDs like Carson or this guy try to use their “science” credentials to proselytize using really bad arguments? The uneducated have an out, the educated not so much.