…and this is a 
Starbucks gets cozier with the DI
Category: Creationism
Posted on: March 11, 2007 11:45 AM, by PZ Myers
I like Seattle. I grew up near there. But it's got two things that annoy me: Starbucks coffee (OK, but overpriced and a little too pretentious) and the Discovery Institute (unspeakably vile inanity). Unfortunately, the proximity of those two institutions seems to encourage them to ooze into bed together and spawn expensive coffee with stupid ideas. They've done this before, publishing tripe from Wesley Smith on their cups, and now they've gotten worse, smearing lies from Jonathan Wells across the cups.
"Darwinism's impact on traditional social values has not been as benign as its advocates would like us to believe. Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves from its baleful social consequences, Darwinism's connection with eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record, and the record is not pretty."
Dr. Jonathan Wells,
biologist and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
Man, it's awfully hard to take Wells seriously. What kind of idiot would think those three things are the product of or in any way inspired by a publication from 1859? What kind of illogical nitwit would think the consequences of an idea have any bearing on the truth of that idea?
Eugenics: Eugenics was not the invention of evolution, but was inspired by animal husbandry and genetics. Darwin was a smart guy, but he did not invent the domestication of animals.
Abortion: Likewise, Darwin was not the first abortionist (or any kind of abortionist, for that matter), and I suspect that as a proper Victorian gentleman he would have been horrified to consider it. I don't know of any writings by the guy on that subject; if there were, I wouldn't be surprised if he were against it.
Racism: Racism preceded Darwin by a long, long time, and religion is wrapped up in it, too.
Starbucks has a disclaimer — "The opinions put forth by contributors to 'The Way I See It' do not necessarily reflect the views of Starbucks" — and they put a wide range of nonsensical quotes in there, but they admit that they invited these contributions from "notable contributors from various fields", so I have to hold them culpable for promoting IDiocy. It might be a good idea to use their contact form to express your disapproval and suggest that they might go looking for intelligent and informed contributors, rather than intellectual frauds from that clown circus at the DI.
It is another interesting example of the DI's willingness to pursue oddball PR moves, though…and I have to say that I think it would be a good idea if scientists and scientific organizations were to do likewise. Hey, NCSE, you're a much better source of thought-provoking quotes and ideas than the creationists—why not contact Starbucks and send them a few thousand good quotes they can use?
We're hoping to take a vacation and visit Seattle this summer. At least one other very nice thing about that town is that there are plenty of alternatives, practically on every street corner, and you don't have to give Starbucks your custom. We won't.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
You've got to hand it to these guys -- they know how to spread their nonsense far and wide. Imagine how many unsuspecting Starbucks customers are now going to be exposed to the DI bacillus. It's not encouraging that Starbucks managament can't see the difference between an "opinion" and a flat-out lie. I suspect there's at least one DI/revisionist-history IDiot wingnut in the ranks of top Starbucks management; otherwise how would they even know about a loony like Wells?
Posted by: Madam Pomfrey | March 11, 2007 11:56 AM
If S'bux is desperate for good quotes and quotable people, maybe we could supply them with good, solid-science quotes.
Posted by: Monado | March 11, 2007 12:11 PM
Posted by: quork | March 11, 2007 12:22 PM
Monado has a really good idea, IMO. It does seem like they are pulling quotes out from everywhere, and a lot of them are cringe-inducing. Maybe a solid Dawkins quote, or Feynman blurb, tactfully offered, could make its way onto a Starbucks cup and counteract the DI crap?
Here is my suggestion:
"I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? ... It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it." - Richard Feynman
... and I suppose you can change the last part to read, "than any artists of the pasts, or creationists of the present imagine(d) it"
Posted by: Matt the heathen | March 11, 2007 12:32 PM
Maybe we should round up some more "alternative viewpoints" from "notable contributors" and send them Starbucks' way... I'm thinking Holocaust deniers, anti-vaxxers, perhaps a geocentrist or two? I mean, if you're going to spend the money to print bullshit on your cups, why not go for the bulliest of the bullshit you can find?
Posted by: RedMolly | March 11, 2007 12:32 PM
If I ever need to go into a franchise coffee place, I choose Dunn Bros; what I hate about Starbucks is their omni-presence his driven away the coffee shops and breakfast places that dotted main streets for decades. They managed to move the natural price of a cup of coffee from a manageable $1.35 to a confab of concoctions with coffee connections at prices one would normally associate with a light lunch.
I think that they are the Wal-Mart of coffee, with a twist of pretension added for good measure. Not for nothing did Christopher Guest stab at them in Best in Show and Mike Myers had his laugh at their expense in the 2nd Austin Powers movie.
But seriously, folks. Adding Jonathan Wells to Starbucks coffee cups? Can this mean that we will soon see quotes from Carrot-Top on the importance of eating our vegetables? When does the Exxon Chair get to run a quote on Global Warming?
When I can no no longer buy a bag of freshly ground coffee for the price of two mocha gelate double de-caffs, I might stop in their store for a sumatra, but I won't say "grande" if I want a large. But I don't need idiocy staring me in the face when I drink coffee. I have mirrors for that.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | March 11, 2007 12:36 PM
...
...
Here was my comment to Starbucks:
Oh, well hell. I LIKED Starbucks. But now I've just read about you whoring out your cups for a quote from that "intelligent design" shill, Jonathan Wells.
"Darwinism's impact on traditional social values has not been as benign as its advocates would like us to believe. Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves from its baleful social consequences, Darwinism's connection with eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record, and the record is not pretty."
So now Starbucks coffee cups serve as billboards for lying propaganda against good science. As a mouthpiece for the enemies of good science in AMERICA.
There may be someone in your media department who thinks "any exposure is good exposure." While that may be true for banned books or bad-boy rock stars, it isn't true for companies that sell products like yours. I doubt if you'll get a single extra sale by fronting for anti-science phonies like Wells. The people who suck up his tripe are probably a very tiny percentage of the upscale demographic Starbucks targets.
On the other hand, the educated, intelligent people who DO frequent your stores in large numbers are actually capable of seeing the difference between true and false. And the importance of seeing the difference.
It's up to you, of course, what you put on your cups. Far be it from me to say you can't have all the quotes you like from religious leaders, politicians, philosophers, movie stars, rockers, rappers, comedians ... hell, even pedophile priests and convicted serial killers if you want.
But you won't get me back in there. I can live without a Starbucks Mocha Grande. What a lot of us can't live without, what I myself WON'T live without, is science and medicine unadulterated by creationist lies. It looks to me like you've revealed yourself as a willing front for those lies.
Because of this, as of today, you have one less customer. Plenty of other places to get coffee.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | March 11, 2007 12:36 PM
That the morons who run Starbucks think that Jonathan Wells is a competent commentator of Biology is further proof that an excess of coffee is an efficient way of killing brain cells.
Posted by: Stanton | March 11, 2007 12:41 PM
Oops.
Sorry, I have no idea how I missed that. I guess both PZ and Monado have the right idea...Posted by: Matt the heathen | March 11, 2007 12:42 PM
Maybe you've been drinking too much coffee, too?
I suggest you switch to tea.
Posted by: Stanton | March 11, 2007 12:46 PM
Jonathan Wells is a notable contributor to the Lying for Jesus field.
Posted by: Greco | March 11, 2007 12:49 PM
You'll get no sympathy from me, it's your own fault for throwing all that good tea into Boston Harbor all those years ago.
Hmmm...lots of coffee drunk in both the US and the Middle East, both hotbeds of extreme religiosity...a connection perchance?
Besides, how many people actually read their coffee cups?
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | March 11, 2007 12:53 PM
Holy Crap!
I guess I had been ignoring this.
It's bad enough that they put everything in a paper cup.
Posted by: Greg Laden | March 11, 2007 12:58 PM
I posted about this the other day, and after writing a compaint to Starbucks the response I got was essentially "Well, we just issued a pro-evolution/anti-ID David Quammen cup, so that makes things even. We'll just keep doing whatever we want and we'll consider posting your complaint on our website feedback area."
Posted by: Laelaps | March 11, 2007 1:03 PM
Take this, Starbucks!
I am absolutely ashamed and embarrassed to see that you have printed cups with "The way I see it" by "Dr." Jonathon Wells of the Discovery Institute. The DI is one of the most shameful things Seattle brings to the world. Their endless tirade against science and attempts to bring Christianity to the classrooms of public schools in America, a secular state not founded on religion, is nothing more than a disinformation campaign. By aiding and abetting their attempts to undermine science with religion, you have lost one faithful customer. I will never buy another Starbucks product unless you publicly retract this statement. The Discovery Institute, and "Dr." Wells in particular, are not experts in any field except that of lies and deceit. Seattle is a city full of educated, intelligent people, home to a great number of scientists and engineers. By spreading this trollop on cups emblazoned with your logo, you are associating Seattle not with the entrepreneurs and thinkers it has been known for in the past, but with a regressive and harmful vocal minority whose "free speech" is costing America a great deal of harm.
Posted by: Kat | March 11, 2007 1:16 PM
Well, Quammen's good!
Posted by: CCP | March 11, 2007 1:18 PM
Given the RCC's strong historical role in the creation and propagation of racism and its continuing role through its anti contraception doctrine in the propagation of back street abortion I find it amazing that a so called expert on religion should try to put the blame for these to activities onto Darwin's shoulders. As for Starbucks, I was never a customer of theirs and a will now certainly never become one.
Posted by: Thony C. | March 11, 2007 1:26 PM
What, Microsoft doesn't make the annoying-Seattle-area institutions list?
Posted by: Aaron Harnly | March 11, 2007 1:28 PM
Posted by: quork | March 11, 2007 1:28 PM
Warning, Will Robinson! Warning! Warning! You're getting worked up about the kitsch quips printed on paper coffee cups. Yes, this one is stupid. I doubt it is the only stupid quip in the lot. The most important thing to Starbucks is the last syllable of its name. It's a business that sells coffee, sweets, and wireless access. The thought that geeks buying coffee will see that slogan and say, "oh, look at this stupid one," likely gives some PR person at Starbucks a small thrill. That is attention. That is branding. It's a win for the DI only because it's about the best they can hope to do. No, I don't want to see real science organizations competing with DI to get quips plastered in various commercial venues.
Posted by: Russell | March 11, 2007 1:30 PM
"these to activities" strike that "to"! No idea how that crept in?
Posted by: Thony C. | March 11, 2007 1:31 PM
People in the Pacific NW looking for a non-Starbucks non-ID left-of-center coffee shop should stop by Bipartisan Cafe, 7901 S.E. Stark St., Portland OR. Family-friendly, Stumptown coffee, homemade pie.
"Bipartisan" means the Democrats and another party to be named later, not including the Republican Party.
Posted by: John Emerson | March 11, 2007 1:34 PM
There are plenty of good reasons not to drink Starbucks, but this tempest in a teacup is not one of them.
Posted by: notthedroids | March 11, 2007 1:44 PM
Bipartisan Cafe MySpace
And they have wifi.
Posted by: John Emerson | March 11, 2007 1:46 PM
FYI, Seattle ranks #2 when it comes to coffee shops per capita. Anchorage, Alaska is #1, with 2.8 per 10,000 residents, compared to 2.5 for Seattle and environs. Except for Boulder, CO, the top 10 coffee cities in the US are all on the West Coast.
Posted by: Grumpy | March 11, 2007 1:48 PM
"I will never buy another Starbucks product unless you publicly retract this statement."
Starbucks didn't make the statement, Jonathan Wells did, a fact that is made abundantly clear on the coffee cup.
Posted by: notthedroids | March 11, 2007 1:48 PM
"Except for Boulder, CO, the top 10 coffee cities in the US are all on the West Coast."
Starbucks' corporate strategy was--with 20/20 hindsight--brilliant: Take west coast coffee culture and export a user-friendly version of it to the rest of the States . . . and now the world.
Starbucks treats its employees quite well . . . extremely well compared with, say, Walmart.
So I find this handwringing over the Wells quotation a bit pathetic.
Posted by: notthedroids | March 11, 2007 1:53 PM
By spreading this trollop
Sexy!
Most of the coffee shop owners I've talked to actually like Starbucks, for one specific reason -- they set the prices high enough to make it possible to make a profit selling coffee, even if you're a small operator.
John Emerson: The "Pacific NW" seems like kind of a wide area to promote the Bipartisan Cafe for, don't you think? :P A really great coffee shop in Portland is Ristretto on NE 42nd & Fremont. They roast their own beans in small batches, and the roaster/owner is just a goddamn coffee genius.
Posted by: Djur | March 11, 2007 1:55 PM
JohnEmerson: thanks for the tip on Bipartisan Cafe. We're moving to Portland in June (huzzah!) and are already collecting all the tips we can find on swell places to eat, drink and revel in wireless Internet access.
(My sweetie just popped his head in and said he'll go back to Starbucks when they start running Dawkins quotes on their cups.)
Posted by: RedMolly | March 11, 2007 1:57 PM
Well, I'm not a coffee drinker, but I'll take extra care to continue not drinking coffee at Starbucks.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | March 11, 2007 1:57 PM
Has anyone actually verified this beyond the original poster? This has all of the trappings of a hoax.
As best as I can tell, the quotes only go up to #219.
-Crow
Posted by: Crow | March 11, 2007 2:01 PM
The funny thing is that I would usually expect quotes on a coffee cup to be, at worst, hollow happy nonsense. This one is a smear on a respected scientist (not to mention a big fat lie by a bogus), which I think justifies any complaints about it. Let's see what happens if they put an anti-Einstein quote on their cups. "Einstein was a big poopy-head because he taught that everything is relative, which led to teenage sex and vandalism."
So if anyone does decide to send some pro-science quotes, make sure they're positive.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 11, 2007 2:04 PM
I just spend some time bombarding them with quotes from Bertrand Russell, Dan Barker, and Carl Sagan. If they get flooded with such quotes, they may decide that they've gotta post some of them. There's so much great material out there... Paine, Ingersoll, Gardner, Randi, Harris, Dawkins... pitch in, everyone! Give 'em your favorite quotes.
Posted by: Chris Hallquist | March 11, 2007 2:09 PM
Here's what I sent in:
I feel obliged to complain strongly about this.
On your cups, you have the following quote:
"Darwinism's impact on traditional social values has not been as benign as its advocates[...] eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record, and the record is not pretty."
Dr. Jonathan Wells"
This is a far cry from an 'opinion'. These are all ugly lies. Darwin had nothing to do w/any of this. Darwin was no more racist than any man of his day, probably less so. Abortion has been w/us centuries prior to Darwin's day, and eugenics of a sort also has a long history prior to Darwin's theory.
In short, Wells is making an effort to spread a pack of dirty, dirty lies, and in the future, I suggest you folks do a bit more research before you release a 'word bite', as it were."
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | March 11, 2007 2:32 PM
For those who think complaining about this is unwarranted -- how would you feel if Starbucks used these quotes? Do you think Starbucks would even dare to print them?
How about someone more contemporary?
Or perhaps we should let the religious damn themselves with their own words?
(Luther said a lot of things that we should find embarrassing, by the way.)I'm sure you all think it is OK until it is your ox getting gored.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 11, 2007 2:37 PM
Well, this is most timely--I'm hosting a workshop this coming weekend on developing evidence-based best practices guidelines for massage. People are arriving from all over the US and Canada, I've got the program and food menu set, and was just shopping around for coffee and tea on tap for three days.
I was actually planning to get it at Starbucks, but since the workshop is about a field's efforts in becoming more science-based, I'm not comfortable supporting attempts to undermine science--even off-handed throwaway ones like this, where if Starbucks had done a minimum of homework, they'd know how deceptive that quote is. I will make sure to communicate that fact to them, in case they are interested.
So, Tully's, Starbucks' loss is your gain.
Posted by: RavenT | March 11, 2007 2:39 PM
Repeat: Has anyone verified this?
So far, everything I've seen is based on a claim from one forum post on another forum (linked in PZ's article). When one tries to follow the link to Starbucks' website that the original poster provided as "evidence," the promised evidence is not there. The quote in question is supposedly #224; the quotes on the starbucks website only go up to #219.
It seems very important to me that one verify these things before making a big stir about them. Otherwise we - as supporters of science in general and evolutionary biologists in particular - come off as looking like gullible, pitchfork wielding idiots willing to slander a company based on an unverified internet rumor. That's hardly good PR for our side.
So...does anyone have confirmation that they've used this quote? As soon as I see it, I'll write my own letter of complaint to Starbucks.
-Crow
Posted by: Crow | March 11, 2007 2:42 PM
Crow: "Repeat: Has anyone verified this?"
I learned of the quote being used through this UD post first, and after sending an irate e-mail to Starbucks I received two replies on the topic (I would reproduce them here but my e-mail is down for some reason; I'll do so as soon as it starts working again).
Like others have pointed out here, it appears Starbucks is trying to go the "Teach the Controversy" route by issuing quotes from Quammen and Wells simultaneously, but like others on this thread, I think that's utter BS and expressed that to the sales rep I was in correspondence with. It also seemed that Starbucks isn't about to issue a Dawkins, Sagan, Darwin, etc. quote cups because it seems like the quotes either need to be solicited by the company or submitted by interested parties and then approved, so I don't know how much good submitting quotes to them will do (although we certainly should call the company on their ID-friendly brain lapse).
Posted by: Laelaps | March 11, 2007 2:56 PM
"Christianity's impact on traditional social values has not been as positive as its advocates would like us to believe. Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves from its baleful social consequences, Christianity's connection with genocide, intellectual suppression and racism is a matter of historical record, and the record is not pretty."
Joel
High school teacher and author of semi-witty comments
Posted by: Joel | March 11, 2007 2:58 PM
"For those who think complaining about this is unwarranted -- how would you feel if Starbucks used these quotes?"
"I'm sure you all think it is OK until it is your ox getting gored."
In the science vs superstition debate, we scientists are supporting the rational, evidence-based, grown-up point of view. So we ought to act that way, and not like fifth graders caught fighting during recess. ("But HE started it!")
Posted by: notthedroids | March 11, 2007 2:59 PM
But they already did it with Wesley Smith's quote earlier. Not being a coffee drinker, I didn't really notice it at the time, and so I had forgotten about it when it came time to think about where to buy coffee and tea for this workshop.
In this post, PZ just reminded me that they had already chosen to associate themselves with anti-science; if they've done it again (as it seems, but pending confirmation, as you point out), that reinforces my willingness to boycott them--now that I'm actually buying coffee for once--but the first time was sufficient to establish the principle for me.
Posted by: RavenT | March 11, 2007 2:59 PM
To Crow,
What do you need for substaniation? I could attempt to email you a phtograph of the cup in question. But, a good skeptic could claim it was photoshopped. Please go into a starbucks and buy a cup or ask to see a cup with the Way I see it #224 on it.
Posted by: sgtgene | March 11, 2007 3:00 PM
PZ rejoins:
I think "silly" is the word I used. Bertrand Russell is one of my favorite philosophers. So I'm not all that thrilled about the idea of excerpting him on Starbucks coffee cups. I doubt he'd be thrilled, either. He wasn't a soundbite kind of writer. I think Luther more belongs there.
I guess that's one way of looking at my disenchantment with seeing Bertrand Russell aphorisms on Starbucks coffee cups.
Posted by: Russell | March 11, 2007 3:03 PM
If putting Russell on a coffee cup diminishes him, keep in mind that putting Wells in the same place exalts him.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 11, 2007 3:30 PM
So, what would you consider a good reason not to?
Posted by: Azkryoth | March 11, 2007 3:33 PM
notthedroids: "Says that Starbucks treats it's workers quite well, better than WalMart" not true.
In fact, Starbucks has a lower rate of *delivered* benefits for it's workers than Walmart.
see:
http://www.starbucksunion.org/node/1194
Posted by: tsiatko | March 11, 2007 3:47 PM
What do you need for substaniation?
Ideally, confirmation from Starbucks themselves, either by the quote showing up on their website or by holding said cup in my hand.
But I agree that the evidence is starting to pile up. Let me summarize. We've got:
(1) An anonymous poster who claims to have received emails from Starbucks, but cannot send them because "email is down"
(2) A claim on a website well known to be the epicenter of dishonesty on the web (Uncommon Descent)
(3) Circumstantial support based on the fact that Starbucks did use a previous quotation from a DI fellow, albeit one that did not directly reference evolutionary biology. (While this latter piece of evidence does make the claim plausible, it is also exactly the sort "sounds plausible" evidence gets many internet rumors/hoaxes started.)
---
I'm not saying that Starbucks isn't using the quotation. I'm just saying I sure wouldn't send off a paper to Nature based on this sort of evidence.
-Crow
Posted by: Crow | March 11, 2007 3:52 PM
I happen to think this would be a good counter-quote
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
I'm sure you can place it.
Posted by: Ondoher | March 11, 2007 3:54 PM
"So, what would you consider a good reason not to?"
Their drip coffee isn't very good.
Most of their drinks are chocabloc full of empty calories.
They are ubiquitous.
The atmosphere in their shops is prefab pseudo-artsy drek.
A high percentage of their clientele are annoying wads.
Local shops have more character and individuality.
They play their CDs in the shops (prefab pseudo-artsy drek).
Posted by: notthedroids | March 11, 2007 3:59 PM
Eugenics, as an effective social movement, started in Indiana and was founded by - ta-da - Protestant ministers!
See:
http://kobescent.com/eugenics/
and
http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/imh/102.1/br_9.html
Posted by: tsiatko | March 11, 2007 4:04 PM
My comment to Starbucks:
"As a long-time Starbucks customer, I was very disappointed to see that your company is printing material from the Discovery Institute as part of your "The Way I See It" campaign, specifically Dr. Jonathan Well's slanderous and false quote regarding the harmful impact of "Darwinism", as he chooses to refer to the mainstream of biological thought, on society. While Dr. Wells is, of course, welcome to his opinion, the ideas put forth by the Discovery Institute are rejected by virtually all mainstream scientists, and have been rightly rejected as non-scientific by US federal courts. I hope that Starbucks will either reconsider the platform they are giving to the Discovery Institute, or pair Dr. Wells' quote with a matching one from a flat-earth advocate to put it in good company."
Posted by: MJ Memphis | March 11, 2007 4:08 PM
Azkryoth:
The price. Sometimes, when I'm in the mood to splurge, I'll pay a few dollars for a glass of good wine, or two fingers of single malt scotch. But for coffee?
But that's just me. ;-)
Posted by: Russell | March 11, 2007 4:11 PM
Just to clarify Crow, I'm hardly an anonymous commenter- I use my blog name "Laelaps" so it'll make it easier for other commenters to identify who I am, and I have a short bio up there.
I do appreciate your skepticism, however, and I would love to share the responses I got from Starbucks, but for whatever reason I've been getting 404 error messages back from Yahoo!Mail all day (I don't know if anyone else is having the same problem), so I haven't been able to get into it to get the e-mails for everyone.
Jake Tapper from ABC news also mentions the Wells cup in his ABC news blog here, if anyone cares to check it out. I tried finding Wells' cup on the official Starbucks page, but there is only a small sampling of quotes up and no full listing.
Posted by: Brian Switek | March 11, 2007 4:17 PM
If it turns out to be a hoax you can just claim street theater.
Posted by: notthedroids | March 11, 2007 4:25 PM
Brian,
Apologies for the "anonymous poster" slight.
(Not that there's anything wrong with being an anonymous poster, mind you -- I prefer to keep things that way myself for a variety of reasons.)
I agree it is starting to look like this one is real. I don't know what to hope for, though. If it is real, that's terrible that Starbucks is putting this kind of idiocy on their cups. If it is not real, we end up looking silly...
Best regards,
Crow
Posted by: Crow | March 11, 2007 4:36 PM
Appropriate for the DI would the (inverted) Newton quote:
"If we seem to see not so far as others, it's because giants are standing on our shoulders"
Posted by: Les lane | March 11, 2007 4:42 PM
Well, now we're in a bind... to protest Starbucks, we need evidence in the form of a physical cup - but to get our hands on one, we need to go in and buy it!
I suggest someone needs to dirty themselves just this once so we can get the evidence. A huzzah to the first person to link to a picture on their website. I've already been to Peet's today so I'm not getting any more caffeinated...
Posted by: Pete | March 11, 2007 4:50 PM
My new motto:
Discovery Institute loving fucks
Can get their joe at Starbucks.
I won't.
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 11, 2007 5:05 PM
It would be nice to have Darwin (or PZ Myers, or whomever) quoted on coffee cups. The moral dilemma there is supporting paper cups. I mean, paper cups are OK for takeout, but normally should not be used inside the coffee shop. But wait, that's not the point I want to make.
The point is there is nothing wrong with promoting science (contra Russell, above, sorry Russell) and it should happen more. The reason the NCSE is not getting quotes on coffee cups and the DI is: DI has a 10 million dollar budget, NCSE has a 200,000 dollar budget. (Those figures may not be accurate but they are close).
I'm sure every one who comments on this site is an NCSE member, right?
Just in case your membership has run out, go here to join:
http://www.natcenscied.org/
Posted by: Greg Laden | March 11, 2007 5:14 PM
Pete: Williamn Dembski has one on his site, of course.
Posted by: Greg Laden | March 11, 2007 5:15 PM
Oh, and there is one on my site, but you can't read it, way way too small.
But what is really needed is one of those web-based make your own thingie applications, like for the church signs and the library cards, but for a starbucks cup.
Posted by: Greg Laden | March 11, 2007 5:17 PM
The main reason not to drink Starbucks while in Seattle is that Caffe Vita exists.
Posted by: Bossy Joe | March 11, 2007 5:19 PM
The main reason to not drink Starbucks while in Minneapolis is that The Spy House exists.
Posted by: Greg Laden | March 11, 2007 5:30 PM
It seems very important to me that one verify these things before making a big stir about them.
Well, if I receive an email saying "WTF are you talking about?", I will consider myself duly chastened.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | March 11, 2007 5:45 PM
Crow: It's real. Use Google, you will find dozens of reports, some with photographs.
Posted by: Greg Laden | March 11, 2007 6:04 PM
Crow et al: by way of further evidence/hearsay I actually found myself drinking a cup of (not bad) coffee from a cup bearing this exact quote last week at a Starbucks in LA Airport (terminal 2 to be precise) and was surprised I hadn't seen outrage about it on this blog or others. I got a little riled up about it myself but because I had been up since 5am, and it was 8am by the time I got my coffee (3 hours without caffeine!) and was not looking forward to going from 80 degree weather back to freezing Minneapolis I just couldn't get too excited.
However it is a damned stupid quote. My wife - fairly religious - agreed that it is an inane and untruthful thing to say, and we discussed woozily that it would be just as easy to substitute "Darwinism" for several religions or extreme political ideologies.
My version of the quote: "Whenever someone says something powerful, someone else is going to fuck it up and create something evil blame the person who said the powerful thing in the first place."
Posted by: Andrew | March 11, 2007 6:04 PM
A week late, but:
"Oh my God! They killed Starbuck!"
Posted by: tacitus | March 11, 2007 6:16 PM
i filled out one of their comment things. in addition to suggesting Starbucks might find better material to provoke their presumably intellectual, elitist customers (me included, but i really don't know how well i or others qualify for "intellectual") into discussion, i recommended quotes from Satre and Dawkins relating to the existence of God. i thought that might stir things up more.
Posted by: ekzept | March 11, 2007 6:18 PM
Their coffee is crap. Take it from a guy with an espresso machine on his desk at work and one at home and one-day turnaround from his local roaster of single-origine beans. and its quality has been in decline for years. Ask a starbucks employee for some roast-dated beans some time. Blank Stare.
Posted by: greensmile | March 11, 2007 6:54 PM
Of course the odds are that Starbucks doesn't agree with Wells on anything that's actually controversial. I suspect that printing nonsense gets them noticed (like here), they have their disclaimer, and no doubt they can use the faux "equality" balance and point to quotes from "the other side". But tell us, Starbucks, what this "other side" is. Is it the side of science and scholarship which "also deserves its say"?
Wells is some "notable contributor" in some "field"? This field being flim-flam, how to make a career out of distorting science and working on character assassination? And what the hell is "Darwinism" anyhow? Perhaps it is some bizarre religion that IDiots and a few credulous fools on our side have virtually made up through their lack of science knowledge. But of course the impact of Darwin is mainly upon a scientific theory which has contributions from many scientists and whose achievements are primarily in the medical field, biological understanding, and notably in judicial and scientific phylogenetic reconstructions.
Surely we can await van Daniken's musings on the evils of mainstream archaeology, Velikovsky's revilings of statistical probabilities as applied to orbital mechanics, and Phillip Johnson's notable remarks on how science has made rules against the mention of the possibility of design in science (well, it was something like that). You know, ol' Hitler was a notable contributor in the field of fascist thought, Stalin a major contributor in socialist realism, and Saddam Hussein a major thinker in Iraqi torture. I'm sure they're all about as prone to contribute quotes of value to Starbucks, and surely knock-your-teeth-out dictators deserve as much cup-space at Starbucks as would-be theocrats and major contributors to anti-Enlightenment ideology deserve.
To be fair to Starbucks, they probably wouldn't know the difference between a "major contributor" to a "field" and a credentialed pro-slavery advocate, they'd probably just blithely follow the credentials and the seemingly authentic "think tank" evidence and print whatever nonsense they got from some hack Ph.D who couldn't think if Reverend Moon told him to think. Of course it's a loathsome practice, it's just that they're faking themselves out as enlightened and non-discriminatory printers of quotes, even as they abrogate all responsibility to enlighten the public with quotes from people who have thought beyond Rev. Moon's dogmas.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 11, 2007 6:55 PM
In case anyone is interested, I've posted the two e-mails I received from Starbucks about my complaint (one's a form e-mail, another is more specific) over at Laelaps. I expect many of the people that have been writing similar complaints will be getting form letters back during the next day or so as well.
Posted by: Laelaps | March 11, 2007 7:05 PM
Has anyone actually verified this beyond the original poster? This has all of the trappings of a hoax.
As best as I can tell, the quotes only go up to #219.
Since a poster has already written that he complained and got a response from Starbucks along the "Oh well, we're teaching the controversy" line, rather than the "We don't actually have that on our coffee cups" line, it's probably not a hoax.
Uncommon Stupidity also couldn't resist posting about it on their website.
Posted by: Nullifidian | March 11, 2007 7:17 PM
Why not quote Darwin directly?
Darwin on Climate, Ch 3 O.S. 6th edition
"Climate plays an important part in determining the average numbers of a species, and periodical seasons of extreme cold or drought seem to be the most effective of all checks....The action of climate seems at first sight to be quite independent of the struggle for existence; but in so far as climate chiefly acts in reducing food, it brings on the most severe struggle between the individuals, whether of the same or of distinct species, which subsist on the same kind of food.
What would ExxonMobile have to say about that?
As far as the eugenics goes, that was championed by Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin - and the Galtons were a family of gun manufacturers and bankers, as opposed to the Darwin's background in medicine and science - which should explain a lot (bankers and gun manufacturers probably caused more wars than anyone else in the 20th century).... though Darwin's "Descent of Man" does include statements like this one:
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."
Oh dear... but don't forget that Darwin was an aristocrat (and a pigeon fancier), and was raised to believe in the superiority of the aristocracy, after all. However, ascribing all evolutionary theory to Darwin is like ascribing all physical theory to Newton or Maxwell. I always thought that Mendel was the better scientist (he did figure out genetics, after all, by painstaking experiment). Science moves on... (P.S. speaking of Newton, natural selection is not a 'force')
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it
-- Omar Khayyam
Posted by: Ike | March 11, 2007 7:29 PM
"Christianity's impact on traditional social values has not been as benign as its advocates would like us to believe. Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves from its baleful social consequences, Christianity's connection with torture, genocide and racism is a matter of historical record, and the record is not pretty." Would they print, this, do you think?
Posted by: rob stowell | March 11, 2007 7:42 PM
Haha Mr. Stowell, surely you jest... ;)
Posted by: BlueIndependent | March 11, 2007 7:52 PM
People DO read these things. and smaller minds take them at face value. And some of those who take it at face value vote.
Don't underestimate how stupidity spreads.
As for Starbucks, if I WERE a coffee drinker I wouldn't drink coffee there, mostly because I know too many employees and former employees who never got benefits, whose hours were always kept just below the level where they'd have to pay... Starbucks does NOT treat it's workers any better than Walmart, they just haven't attracted all the attention Walmarts has.
They've made a reputation of being hip and savvy and young... but are these quotes ANY of those things?
Posted by: dorid | March 11, 2007 8:17 PM
Here's my e-mail:
I was interested to learn that one of the quotes in your "the way I see it" series is from the eminent scientist Jon Wells. May I expect to soon see a quote from the eminent historian David Irving?
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | March 11, 2007 8:22 PM
1. I never get the controversial cups. My quick surveys show most people ignore the stuff on the cups.
2. The cup quotes seem designed to start conversations; where were you guys last August? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002455480_starbucks29m.html
Or March two years ago? http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/2005/03/25/Business/Coffee_with_steam.shtml
3. There is something really sad imagining the board meetings in DI offices where they determined that, to advance their cause, they needed to put Jonathan Wells on Starbucks cups. Can you imagine have so little scientific, political or ethical gravitas, that it's a huge victory to be on a coffee cup?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | March 11, 2007 9:22 PM