Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
Using Constitutional quotes and arguments regarding abortion are ludicrous as that document did not include women, Indians or Blacks yet alone a fetus.
The Cambrian as an evolutionary exemplar
The evolution of deuterostome gastrulation
The proper reverence due those who have gone before
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« An almost biblical curse | Main | They'd better not be holy »
Category: Creationism • Humor
Posted on: June 18, 2007 8:29 PM, by PZ Myers
This is perfect: a crossword puzzle, with the answers filled in as a scientist would, and then as a creationist would. Very cute—the creationist answers don't fit!
They will argue, of course, that the problem is our metaphysical insistence on using words that fit the grid and address the clues.
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
That is clever.
As I've noted elsewhere, I think the reason creationists are so opposed to the idea of evolution is not because they know it is wrong but because the fear it is right. After all, science gives them cell phones, and microwaves, and NASCAR on television, and life saving medicines, so they worry that maybe this whole science thing is right. Therefore it must be shouted down.
Posted by: Pablo | June 18, 2007 8:47 PM
More Darwinist hegemonic persecution. Now college students who don't bother to listen to their professors' Darwinist propoganda and instead read the paper must confront intolerance of their religious beliefs.
THERE SHOULD BE TWO SETS OF CLUES AND EXTRA BOXES.
(Kidding, of course)
Posted by: Jon | June 18, 2007 9:13 PM
Of course, by religious beliefs, I meant scientific beliefs. Small error on my part.
Posted by: Jon | June 18, 2007 9:19 PM
I would liken science more to a Shmuzzle, with the pieces scattered about by the kids, some of them eaten by the dog, and with no box top to follow.
You start by almost randomly test-fitting pieces together until you find a match. Each additional clue you find fits more easily with the previous ones, and slowly a picture emerges. It's incomplete, and you may never find that one piece that reveals one part of the puzzle; but you have enough to see the overall picture.
Posted by: Steve | June 18, 2007 9:44 PM
Humans are:
Primates (Science)
made of dirt (Creationism)
Something to think about the next time someone says their grandpa weren't no monkey.
Posted by: ferfuracious | June 18, 2007 9:59 PM
can't we be primates that are made of dirt? (I mean, we ARE pretty much made of dirt, depending on how you define dirt...)
Posted by: craig | June 18, 2007 10:01 PM
I like it, but what's with the non-standard numbering? It makes it hard to take in quickly...hmm, maybe this is worth fixing...
Posted by: Matt | June 18, 2007 10:13 PM
Steve,
I teach high school freshmen biology and have used a puzzle model to teach nature of science for some years now. Each group gets a small portion of the puzzle, no box and only draws a few pieces in order to make a hypothesis. They then draw a few more, make a new hypothesis and then look at the other groups' sections. Each group will draw almost the exact same conclusion about the picture which we then liken to a scientific theory. Anytime a question or comment arises later concerning scientific uncertainty, like the incompleteness of the fossil record as an example, all I have to do is remind them of the puzzle lab and I get looks of complete understanding from the class.
Posted by: brad | June 18, 2007 10:21 PM
Actually, the real creationist solution is one that shades all the squares with solid black, and has a big arrow pointing to all the black squares labeled "Insert God here."
Posted by: Cog | June 18, 2007 10:22 PM
The creationist, instead of trying to fit the puzzle pieces together, uses them to form letters and words that say "God did it".
Posted by: Mark | June 18, 2007 10:36 PM
Brad -
I salute you.
Posted by: Steve | June 18, 2007 11:28 PM
I think my favorite part is the creationist answer to #1 down (a fish with lungs): "UH MERMAID"
Posted by: Evil_Mage_Ra | June 19, 2007 12:48 AM
I am not the descendant of a monkey because the monkey and I have a common ancestor, a predecessor, one who, or antecedent to monkey and I.
In just the same manner I am not "made of dirt."
While I will admit that a fair assay of my chemical and atomic content might be similar to a spadeful of good bottom-land soil, I am not made out of that stuff. Nor am I made of a handful of sand from the shore of Atlantis, or of a small vial of recently thawed tissue.
The atoms that make up my body found their own way here. The atoms of the good earth found themselves occupied long before the atoms of my mother and father mingled. Most atomic and molecular bonds found in nature are pretty stable. Left alone they will simply continue as they are, more or less. Dirt will continue to be made of these atoms over here, while other things are made of all the other atoms. The atoms I am made of, and other critters such as you as well, come from this second category. (I realize that there are actual atomic and chemical changes happening continually at various scales. I'm just saying that, hey, most stuff stays the same.)
And, of course, there is that pesky stat that's been popping up over the years that says how long it takes for your body to "replace all the atoms it just had the other day."
In spite of these random mutations, I think it is safe to say that the atoms that make up my body have never, all together, at the same time, been dirt. And I posit two reasons:
1) Imagine the statistical probability of such a thing . . .
2) The role of molecular biology.
Inasmuch as 1 takes care of itself, the first thing about 2 is that many of the atoms that constitute a given organism where recently the property of, the corpus of, another organism. Everything is food, and everything eats, in the realm of life and the real of molecular biology, which amounts to about the same thing. That is if my rudimentary and non-academic understanding is valid.
My point is that the atoms that constitute the entity typing now, have been ingested and excreted now for at least since some event a long time ago, near as I can tell that's about a couple billion years, give or take. And this goes for the whole equally; no one is special or pristine. My claim to centrality in this universe is as valid as T. Rex's was, as Neandertal's was.
But wait! It's not just eating and shitting. There is procreation! The exchange of atoms that are suitably arranged to make another one of us. And these atoms come from . . . oh.
But we cannot know the genesis of our atoms. And we take them for granted. In fact we take them for granted more than we take anything for granted. Is there a term for that? Grantest? Thing is, they are granted. Because they are there. And that is all one can say. There they are and here we are. Kinda make me think about old friends I haven't talked to in a while.
There is a delightful essay by Isaac Asimov about the probability that with your next breath yow will inhale an atom once inhaled by (I think) Julius Caesar. If you can find it, do read it . Circa nineteen fifty mumble.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could track an atom, any one at all, backwards in time and decipher just what happened to it at any given moment? Talk about an iron clad pedigree!
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 19, 2007 1:02 AM
What happens if there was a question in that puzzle we cannot answer?
The scientist would've left it blank, rejoicing in the fact that there is something he didn't know, and going out with enthusiasm to learn more.
The creationists would've tried to fit in a hokey explanation so he doesn't feel too discomforted by the unknown.
Posted by: TC | June 19, 2007 1:03 AM
Brad,
Do you remove all the edge pieces of the puzzle?
Posted by: Gerry L | June 19, 2007 1:31 AM
You wait for the next day's issue of The Humongous Fun Journal of Scientific Puzzles Book, which will contain the answers.
Posted by: xebecs | June 19, 2007 7:18 AM
Crudely - there is just such a story. In "The Periodic Table" by Primo Levi, a collection of stories based around elements, the tale "Carbon" puts it all in perspective (the whole book is wonderful but this tale is stupendous).
Posted by: AnthonyK | June 19, 2007 8:30 AM
Boxism is a failed paradigm that is increasingly being challenged by a new generation of puzzle-solvers. The boxists resort to ridicule because they know they're losing. The Making Shit Up Institute, with its massive research operation, is in the forefront of this challenge. The MSUI farts in your general direction, boxists!
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | June 19, 2007 8:33 AM
Trying again, what is the deal with jimmyainthere.cgi? I keep getting an error message from that and have a few times in the past.
-----------------------------------------
Um, the structure of those grids doesn't comform to standard crossword puzzle parameters. That kind of deflated the whole point of the thing, at least for me. :^(
Posted by: Mena | June 19, 2007 10:06 AM
Yeah, I got very confused by the numbering system...
Posted by: Rose | June 19, 2007 10:49 AM
Philosopher of Science Susan Haack makes heavy use of the crossword metaphor in her description of science. Her books are always worth reading.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 19, 2007 11:22 AM
Of course now I see that the link mentions that.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 19, 2007 11:27 AM
Seems like a normal crossword to me. It's not the NY Times, but it's not supposed to be.
Posted by: stogoe | June 19, 2007 12:51 PM
Just so the people commenting on the numbering style of the puzzle don't seem like delusional jackasses, I'm just commenting here to say that I changed the numbering to "standard" crossword style--I never knew there was a crossword standard, but now I know!
Hopefully now it's a bit easier to read. I appreciate it when people catch my little errors.
Posted by: Saint Gasoline | June 19, 2007 2:12 PM
Um, no.
I may be wrong (since it was quite a while I solved a cross word), but I think you started out with the swedish coordinate standard, and now it is an american one.
It may have to do with chess board coordinates, where the same confusing contingency between board size (or rather piece position in the set) and numbering is used in the british position standard. Different cultures, different thinking.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | June 19, 2007 4:24 PM
Thank you, AnthonyK.
I'd heard about "The Periodic Table" before but had somewhat forgotten about it. I'm glad you jogged my memory.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 19, 2007 9:03 PM
Gerry L.
I do remove the edge pieces.
Posted by: Brad | June 21, 2007 1:14 PM