A Twitter picture from Paul Kedrosky, author of the Infectious Greed website:
UPDATE: You can buy this one, and many other cool “teach the controvery” teeshirts, here.
h/t: Scott near Berkeley, Michael
I can haz?
January 25, 2013 • 1:55 pm
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
lol.
Will the controversy be taught in Chemistry or in Alchemy cuz in Alchemy, I don’t think there’s any controversy about the proposed process.
I also like the one that has periodic table boxes for the five classical Greek elements.
The cool thing about the classical elements (four of them, anyway) is that they correspond 1:1 with the phases of molecular matter: earth/solid, air/gas, water/liquid, fire/plasma.
Not sure what we can do with aether, though.
Of course you can have it: just bombard the lead atom with neutrons. One of the reactions is to from gold.
The link to the Teeshirt site
Bottom row
Middle
That design is called “Sun Scarab”
So that implies that there are still people TODAY who believe that the sun moves through the action of a giant Dung beetle [Kephri?]? Does anyone know if there’s a cult today who think this?
Probably the same amount of people who believe in Cthulhu and Paul Bunyan.
I feel a bit daft for not getting it instantly.
Seen these before. Hilarious. I think my favorite is the Xenu Airlines one.
Or maybe “Old Elvis.” I think, in arguing with the religious, I get almost as much mileage out of Elvis as Sam Harris does.
There’s no controversy about alchemy in (nearby to me) Rustbelt America. Al (siding) and Cu (wire, pipe, from abandoned buildings) is routinely converted into crack.
Actually, there is a controversy over the summation of tentative causative factors within evolutionary theory, and in my considered view, there are multiple causative factors.
But is interventionary input by a directed source even a possibility? Of course, but it eclipses orbiting teapots.
I occasionally comment on Yahoo Answers, although a back and forth exchange doesn’t work well there.
My biggest concern was what I view as a misconception over what ID entails, evident by the answers preceding mine.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130124202750AANy5NV
Evidence?
Science rules and roolz, you certainly are ignorant of.
LeeBowman,
You seem to be under the impression that taking the exact same things a zillion people have said before and gussying them up in stilted, needlessly prolix language makes your comments sound more rational or more relevant.
It doesn’t. Whether you say, “God done it” or “interventionary input by a directed source”, it’s still discredited gibberish. I actually have more respect for the rednecks who yell “God done it!” and wave their Bibles around. At least they’re just simply stating what they believe. Your brand of pseudo-intellectual sophistry is much worse.
Ah, but what may “seem” to be the case (in your case) is a blatantly false assumption based upon several false presumptions. One, that ID is a religious view, two, that anyone espousing it has an a priori religious position, and three, that couching that view in loquacious verbiage to sneak it in under the wire is merely a tactic. Not so.
Firstly, ID is an evidence based hypothesis. While to some it may imply a monotheistic god, this is a faith based position that may proceed from design inferences, but does not predicate a design inference. ID is based primarily upon the improbability of natural causation where probability bounds are exceeded.
Secondly, there is no basis for this assumption, simply because there have been examples cited where this was evident. Example: Judge Jones’ assumption that actions by the school board in the Dover PA district, along with a few other examples, proved that ID was religion based. The scientific basis for ID went completely over his head.
And three, what I stated was what design inferences are based upon, i.e. the postulated addition of intervention to natural processes at key points, to facilitate subsequent altered phyla.
While not offered as hard fact due to its non-empirically replicable forensic nature, neither are totally natural causative processes, which have not been empirically confirmed as well. At least at this juncture, neither are proven as absolutes.
Omigosh, I just noticed that my response to the evolution/ ID question posed by ABA was just awarded ‘Best Answer’ by him. Since there were (24) other answers 180 deg. to mine, I guess we must both be creotards. Or perhaps just rational thinkers …
Cheers
The supposedly smart part of me hates the idea of responding to you, but I also am a very stupid person and can’t resist. I don’t want to waste space in Jerry’s days-old thread, so my response is here:
http://riffingreligion.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/a-turd-by-any-other-name-would-smell-as/
You can respond there if you want. Or not. Honestly I feel like an idiot for responding at all.
Got a service call this early AM, so too late to reply to your blog posting. Too many points to address at 2 am.
But hey, we agree on things like the prevailing gun addiction (neat metaphor), Texas politics, war opposition, and most likely, 911.
In the meantime, if you want to peruse my views on biology, evolutionary theory, and ID (and not religion per se), just google my name. I recently posted 120 comments over a 12 day period on Randi’s Blog.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=243709
Later for the hair splitting …
Sorry to report, but hair splitting is what I do best. I am a philosophy major, after all. 😛
DO WANT!
Would love to get the fossil shirt, but the shipping to Australia is a dealbreaker. :S
This t shirt site is great. I have several, including one of the ‘Teach the Controversy’ shirts of the devil burying dinosaur bones. Got in trouble with my department chair for wearing that one to work one weekend, and a student saw it and complained. Sheesh.