1. Reginald Selkirk says

    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.

  2. I_Stole_Your_JesusFish says

    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)

  3. E.V. says

    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….

  4. Your Mighty "CAPS ARE BACK" Overload says

    I stole your Jesusfish @ 9 wrote

    Evolution is not a belief. God is a belief.

    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.

  5. says

    “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.

  6. Spyderkl says

    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…

  7. Gotchaye says

    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.

  8. David says

    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?

  9. Rey Fox says

    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.

  10. Angel Kaida says

    I think the charm is in the clunkiness. The “Very gradual change we can believe in” is therefore my favorite.

  11. says

    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.

    I just ran across the following in a very recent “news” article:

    Science should be about what can be measured or proved. The theory of evolution is more religion than it is science. Pick up a National Geographic or any science textbook, and you will almost always find these words, “scientists believe.” Why does this carry more weight than “theologians believe”?

    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

  12. says

    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..

  13. Rich says

    Isn’t change over time acceleration? All this time I thought Darwin was biologist instead of a physicist.

  14. skyotter says

    i’m getting one. it’ll go with my “Teach the Controversy [devil burying fossils]” shirt

    Happy Monkey!

  15. Your Mighty Overload says

    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.

  16. Your Mighty Overload says

    Rich at 28

    Isn’t change over time acceleration?

    No, it’s velocity.

    Change (increase) in velocity over time is acceleration.

  17. Towel says

    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.