There are several other versions online, and plans to sell them as full sized posters.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Search
Profile
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)
• Quick link to the latest endless thread
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
And how can we ever again succeed in educating children to become moral men and women if, in America's public schools, we consciously deny them all religious instruction, and deny them access to that primary source of morality, God's own word. The Bible is the one book from which they are expressly not allowed to be taught.
[US Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, "The City and The Crusade", Commencement Address for Christendom College, May 6, 1996]
Recent Posts
- Religion: adaptation or by-product?
- Botanical Wednesday: Love is in the air
- Things to do when you're godless
- Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be
- How can we not?
- List of science blogs, with an asterisk
- I'm having bad acid flashbacks, man
- That sneaky, nasty blasphemy law
- Rise up, Texans!
- Nice euphemism
A Taste of Pharyngula
Recent Comments
- 'Tis Himself, OM on Nothing will stop the never-ending thread! Nothing!
- stevieinthecity on Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be
- Walton on Nothing will stop the never-ending thread! Nothing!
- Sastra on Religion: adaptation or by-product?
- andrew h on Religion: adaptation or by-product?
- Rev. BigDumbChimp on A reasonable deconversion
- Carlie on Nothing will stop the never-ending thread! Nothing!
- heddle on A reasonable deconversion
- 'Tis Himself, OM on Nothing will stop the never-ending thread! Nothing!
- Carlie on Nothing will stop the never-ending thread! Nothing!
Archives
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
Other Information
« I wish I were a Republican, so I could just make stuff up | Main | Creedocide »
These posters look strangely familiar
Category: Art
Posted on: February 20, 2009 10:34 AM, by PZ Myers
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/100308
Comments
Posted by: blueelm | February 20, 2009 10:42 AM
that is one of the funniest posters I have seen this year.
Posted by: SC, OM | February 20, 2009 10:44 AM
I will buy one. Probably the first.
Posted by: Vic | February 20, 2009 10:47 AM
Nice. I will have to get one of these. But which one? Oh, the choices!
Posted by: Clare | February 20, 2009 10:51 AM
The first one is aces and I wants it for my own.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | February 20, 2009 10:54 AM
Their fifth poster has a bogus quote. There's a P.S. acknowledging that they know the quote is bogus, but apparently they plan to go ahead and print it anyway. Go figure.
Posted by: your mighty "caps not working" overload | February 20, 2009 10:59 AM
That's so cool - I want one!
Posted by: Fred Mounts
|
February 20, 2009 11:00 AM
Speaking of, Obama is now bigger than Jesus! Will we see a redo of The Beetles kerfuffle?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=3&q=http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php%3Faz%3Dview_all%26address%3D102x3747897&ei=otKeSYS7N4G4tweT2O37DA&usg=AFQjCNFrrKqi2gLxy4NUvo-NmL_YnxBiAA
Posted by: Kobra | February 20, 2009 11:01 AM
I am definitely buying one for my bedroom. :D
Posted by: I_Stole_Your_JesusFish | February 20, 2009 11:02 AM
I like the one PZ posted best.
I don't like "Change we can Believe in" as a Darwin poster because I don't 'believe' in evolution.
Evolution is not a belief. God is a belief.
Having said that, I'm in for a poster AND a bumper sticker. Hope he sets up something at CafePress, so we can pick the medium we want (Shirt, coffee cup, banner, etc)
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 20, 2009 11:08 AM
He looks like such a prophet.
Maybe that's one reason the IDiots take evolution for a religion, I mean, besides the colossal dishonesty.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: E.V. | February 20, 2009 11:19 AM
Darwin is great but it's amazing that Shepard Fairey's red, white and blue stencil art has become so over exposed and clichéd due to the ubiquitous "Obama-posterize yourself" sites on the internet. Anyone and everyone can produce their own Obama/Hope art in seconds (and the have, boy oh boy). This has resulted in the quickest case of visual meme fatigue ever. It's like The Matrix multicamera slo-mo effect, righteously kick ass at first and then over-reproduced to parody. Neeeeeext....
Posted by: Your Mighty "CAPS ARE BACK" Overload | February 20, 2009 11:22 AM
I stole your Jesusfish @ 9 wrote
Well, that really depends on your definition of the word "believe". I "believe" in evolution in that I think it is the best explanation for the data, as it stands.
The god hypothesis, however, is unfounded or unjustified belief, which is to say trusting something as an explanation in the absence of evidence, or worse, against the prevailing evidence.
Posted by: www.10ch.org | February 20, 2009 11:26 AM
"Evolution is not a belief. God is a belief."
Is "1+1=2" a belief? There are true beliefs and false beliefs, beliefs with good evidence and beliefs without, and then there are also beliefs that do not matter either way, because they are irrelevant to truth. Of course, a belief does not require a human to believe in it in order for it to be a belief.
Posted by: Ali | February 20, 2009 11:30 AM
Thanks PZ for posting it! Great posters...
Posted by: True Bob | February 20, 2009 11:31 AM
How long until we see Che Guevara done that way?
Posted by: Ouchimoo | February 20, 2009 11:33 AM
CHANGE! heh.
Want.
Posted by: Blik | February 20, 2009 11:52 AM
Love the prints, but the artist(?) needs to design his own work.
Posted by: Hans | February 20, 2009 11:54 AM
Evolution isn't something you need to believe in, it's something you need to understand.
Posted by: Spyderkl
|
February 20, 2009 11:56 AM
Those are great! I love the first one - did a cross-stitch of the Obama poster, so I think I'll have to give that one a go as well...
Posted by: Gotchaye | February 20, 2009 12:00 PM
Wonderful! I think both of the ones on the top row are great, but I'd probably go with "Change we can believe in" for the additional Obama reference and the implied dig at people who don't believe. I may have to get one.
Posted by: David | February 20, 2009 12:04 PM
I’m not a scientist of any kind so I’m out of my comfort zone here but, what do we think of that Darrow quote, people? I’ve never heard it before but it sounds really dodgy to me and not something I’d be keen to call a “great quote”.
I’m not suggesting that it is “the strongest of the species that survives”, because “strong” is such a vague term but I’m not sure that adaptability to change functions very well as an all encapsulating key to survival for individuals either.
In fact, leaving aside the issue that, in the last analysis, no individual survives – we all die - I’m not sure it’s possible to quickly summarise what’s necessary for survival through to procreation even – given that in evolutionary terms that’s the deadline that matters: The problem is that survival criteria, surely, will vary from circumstance to circumstance. For example in Germany in the early 40’s being Jewish was a serious hindrance to survival but it wasn’t because Jews were bad at adapting to change.
On the other hand, what about individuals whose lifespan doesn’t see any noticeable change in their environment? They don’t need to adapt to change – they’ll survive or die based on entirely idiosyncratic requirements. Won’t they?
I guess the point I’m making is that I can see an argument for considering species that are most adaptable as the best “survivors” but not so necessarily with individuals?
I think I’m right (of course) but I don’t think I’m putting it very well. Can any of you biologists help?
Posted by: Ouchimoo | February 20, 2009 12:13 PM
http://www.phdcomics.com/newspapers/preview600/phd091606.gif
Random Flow chart of Scientific Method and "actual" method. I think they mean ID
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 20, 2009 1:25 PM
Lovely. Only this one really works though, the rest are clunky.
Speaking of Darwin, I had to check out They Might Be Giants' appearance on Conan O' Brien last Thursday, and John Linnell had pictures of Lincoln and Darwin on the front of his keyboard. Good ol' TMBG.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | February 20, 2009 1:34 PM
I think the charm is in the clunkiness. The "Very gradual change we can believe in" is therefore my favorite.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 20, 2009 2:09 PM
I just ran across the following in a very recent "news" article:
I think it both demonstrates that "scientists believe" is not technically wrong (pop science uses that phrase a lot), and that it is not advisable to use in the culture wars. We all know why "scientists believe" matters a great deal more than "theologians believe," at least with respect to the issues about which we care. But they don't, and think they've scored a point with their mindless equation of the two.
I hadn't been going to respond because you're certainly right as far as you go. When I saw this great example of why it's better not to use that phrase, though, I had to bring it in.
It is a shame, though, that the misrepresentations of the pseudoscientists cause us to eschew normally proper phrases and terms.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Squiddhartha | February 20, 2009 2:29 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII like it.
Posted by: mikero | February 20, 2009 3:05 PM
Hey there, I'm the guy responsible for this Darwin art. Regarding the "believe" slogan, I agree that "believe" is not the ideal word to use. Still, the parody value stemming from "Change we can believe in" is too good to pass up. But the reason I made the other slogans was because I knew that no everyone would appreciate "believe".
#17: If I made my own artwork, it wouldn't read as parody. In any case, it took me a few days.. it's not like I just threw it into one of those online Obama-posterization tools.
Stickers will be coming soon, I promise..
Posted by: Rich | February 20, 2009 3:14 PM
Isn't change over time acceleration? All this time I thought Darwin was biologist instead of a physicist.
Posted by: Carlie | February 20, 2009 3:26 PM
Dammit! I made a bunch of those images online with this app, but I never thought of that one.
Posted by: mikero | February 20, 2009 4:14 PM
I should add that 100% of profits from these sales will be donated to NCSE.
Posted by: skyotter | February 20, 2009 4:25 PM
i'm getting one. it'll go with my "Teach the Controversy [devil burying fossils]" shirt
Happy Monkey!
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | February 20, 2009 6:44 PM
Glen at 25
I don't disagree that the word "believe" can be made to mean very different things. The definitions of the word are numerous, ranging from those which we would not want to associate with science, to more simple ones, such as "to accept as true or real" or "to credit with veracity", which are pretty innocuous.
When I get called on scientists use of the word believe, I always point out the difference between justified beliefs (scientists believe this = scientists think this is true based upon evidence) and unjustified beliefs (I believe this because I want it to be true).
When the theologians ask why their beliefs should be taken less seriously than those of scientists, the correct response is, with a cheeky smile and a twinkle in your eye, "they have evidence, my good man".
I do not think we should abandon the work "believe", just as I think we should not abandon the word "theory", despite it being, if anything, more poorly understood.
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | February 20, 2009 6:47 PM
Rich at 28
No, it's velocity.
Change (increase) in velocity over time is acceleration.
Posted by: Monado | February 20, 2009 8:27 PM
Uh, PZ, in the original post you left out _who_ is selling.
Red, blue, and cream.
I think they're still fun.
Posted by: Towel | February 20, 2009 9:04 PM
What should we use, if not "belief", for something that one takes to be true? I could substitute "I believe that" for "I consider that, based on the preponderance of evidence, to be true" every time I say that, but I suspect it would get tiresome.
Posted by: Malc | February 21, 2009 1:22 AM
Hey
don't wait to buy - You can make your own poster:
Check out http://obamiconme.pastemagazine.com/entries/new.html
Have fun :)
Posted by: JakeS | February 21, 2009 2:24 AM
Get a snazzy poster AND donate to NCSE at the same time? Sign me up!
Posted by: Holydust | February 21, 2009 4:51 AM
the guy who originally came up with this theme is a douche. i hope the guy responsible for this one doesn't get sued.
the hilarious part is that fairey is a total hypocrite.
http://deceiver.com/2009/02/12/shortchange-you-can-believe-in/
so, in a way, i'm glad his superspecial poster style is wildly popular. it means he can drown in the sea of parodies like he deserves.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | June 7, 2009 3:17 PM
FWIW Deceiver.com is a right-wing science denialism site, in addition to being a nasty gossip site aimed at spreading hatred for people who have the nerve to be both famous and liberal. It's actually a bastardized version of the original "news" found on the Drudge Report.
It's for people for whom Fox and Friends is not biased enough or stupid enough.