The Way IDiots See It: Creationism At Starbucks

[Achán hiNidráne]

While picking up my venti vanilla latte from Starbucks this morning, my eye was drawn to one word that I wouldn't normally expect to find on my coffee cup: "Darwinism..." After peeling off the brown card board heat shield to get a closer look I was confronted by the following:

The Way I See It #224


Darwinsim'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 it's baleful social consequence, 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.
A quick check of wikipedia (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29) reveals that Dr. Wells, who holds PhDs in molecular and cell biology from UC-Berkley and religious studies from Yale, is a fellow at the Discovery Institute.

Oh, he's also a Moonie and a HIV-denier.

It's bad enough that universities give PhDs to this and other fundies to help give a facade of credibility to their disproven dogma (http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-is-science.html), but do we also have to put their stupidity on our coffee cups? :mad:

[cyborg]

That's right.

Evolution is false because we don't like abortion.

Uh huh, that's how these things work.

[porch]

If he's a Creationist and a Moonie, I guess that means moondiddit.

[Achán hiNidráne]

The cup had the standard disclaimer ("This is the author's opinion, not necessarily that of Starbucks."). While I certainly believe that Starbucks and Dr. Wells has every right to publish their nonsence, I can't in good conscience let it go unremarked. Here's my point-by-point breakdown of the comment:

Darwinsim's...


The term "Darwinism" implies that Charles Darwin and those who accept evolution as fact are following a political ideology rather than science. How do you come to that conclusion?

...impact on traditional social values has not been as benign as its advocates would like us to believe...


What "traditional social values" is he talking about? I can only assume that he's talking about what passes for values among conservative Christians given his background. If that's so, then what should we be valuing? That "man is the head of woman?" That homosexuals should be stoned, or at the very least treated as second class citizens? That a woman who is raped in a city should be put to death if she doesn't cry out loud enough? That sexual intercourse is "original sin" and should only be performed by monogamous, married, heterosexual couples intent on popping out more Christians? While I confess that I believe that these are "values" we can do without, they are completely separate issues from the question of evolution's validity. And just who are these "advocates" Wells is referring to anyway?


Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves...

Again, who is Wells talking about? Name names, please.

...from it's baleful social consequence, Darwinism's connection with eugenics, abortion, and racism is a matter of historical record. And the record is not pretty.

The bit about abortion is typical pandering to the fetus-fetishism embraced by the Christian Right. If a bible-beater doesn't like concept, it certain that one of them can find a tortuous connection to abortion, pornography, "the gay agenda," or communism. But how is legal abortion a "baleful social consequence" brought about by evolution? The theory of evolution is about the origin of species, not abortion. As for abortion being "baleful," tell that to a unwed mother stuck with a fetus that she can't possibly support when it comes to term, to a rape victim he becomes pregnant as the result of her attack, or a woman he might die if she gives birth.

(Not to derail the topic, but if conservative Christians were really concerned about preventing abortion, they better start advocating access to birth control... oh wait, they don't believe in that either.)

As for eugenics and racism, these social evils didn't just arise the instant Darwin published his theory. Prejudice and bigotry, in one form or another, has been plaguing humanity long before Darwin was born and, if people in Dr. Wells' camp are any indication, it will continue to do so for future generations.Once again, evolution's only concern are the reasons for speciesization, not whether one racial group was superior to another or whether we could breed a "better" person. True, evolution has been evoked by various political agendas: Nationalists, fascists, Marxists, laissez faire capitalists, racists, and of course, "social Darwinists." However, evolution does not endorse these or any other political opinion, nor does evolution's misuse by these or any other group make the theory any less true.

There is no denying that the findings of evolution and other modern sciences like genetics, geology and astronomy have spread doubt about the existence of divine and therefore changed our perceptions about ethics and morality, but that is not the intent or goal of science. Despite what various anti-science spiritualists (e.g. fundamentalists, new agers, etc.) claim, science is not a vast conspiracy of atheists (or Satanists!) striving to turn humanity away form religion. (Religion does a pretty good job of that on its own.) Wells' general implication appears to be that because x has occurred since evolution has come onto the scene, "Darwinism" must ergo be at fault and that it makes the theory of evolution flawed and/or evil. Even if he were right, and the discovery that all lifeforms have common ancestors truly resulted in Hitler, the KKK, the Soviet Union, Jeffery Dahmer, or Crystal Pepsi, it just means that we are imperfect beings with some nasty tendencies who will do anything to rationalize them.

[Ducky]

Crystal Pepsi was nowhere near as evil as Pepsi AM.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Gravity'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 it's baleful social consequence, Gravity's connection with lynching, firebombing, and ugly sagging breasts is a matter of historical record. And the record is not pretty.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Double post, sorry.

[Achán hiNidráne]

After my first run-in with stupidity and a Starbuck's coffee cup, I was relieved to find this nugget of wisdom on my latte cup this morning:

The Way I See It #220:

Evolution as described by Charles Darwin is a scientific theory, abundantly reconfirmed, explaining physical phenomena by physical causes. Intelligent Design is a faith-based initiative in rhetorical argument. Should we teach I.D. in America's public schools? Yes, let's do - not as science, but alongside other spiritual beliefs, such as Islam, Zoroastrianism, and the Hindu idea that Earth rests on Chukwa, the giant turtle.

--David Quammen
Author, His books include The Song Of The Dodo and The Reluctant Mr. Darwin.


It's sad that Starbuck's couldn't get an actual biologist (paging Dr. Dawkins, Dr. Richard Dawkins) to counter the claims of "Dr." Jonathan Wells, creationist crank and HIV-Denier; however, one should never look a gift horse in the mouth. Quammen, who is a science writer and Rhodes Scholar, is right on! However, even with this ham-handed attempt at "balance," I resent the idea that Starbuck's had to give Wells and his theocratic friends any advertising space to begin with.

Despite the battle cry of the Discovery Institute, there is no "controversy" to "teach." The theory that all species have common ancestors that have developed slowly over the eons via mutation and natural selection is a well established fact backed up by at least two centuries of collected evidence and experimentation. There is no evidence for creation, much less a "God" to do the creating. Sadly, we live in a nation where the public only cheers on science when it creates some new technological distraction or some new megadeath weapon system. (That's not to say that PS3s or national defense are bad things, but there is so much more to science than just Final Fantasy XII and multi-billion-dollar-per-plane stealth fighters.) Assuming they ever learned them in the first place, most Americans leave the lessons of the scientific method behind once they graduate from high school, never to apply them again.

And why not? We're told that science is hard. It's boring in comparison of professional sports or reality TV. In America, scientific knowledge is attributed to social awkwardness and physical homeliness, and pop culture had made it clear that attractive women won't have sex with "nerdy" guys and hunky men are uncomfortable around educated women. Science doesn't make sense to a people who's only collective ambition in life is to work in a cubicle, an assembly line, or a fast food counter. We are also a nation of believers. We are told that Christianity is ingrained in our culture and government. Belief in the Christian interpretation of the Abrahamic god is seen by many as a sign of patriotism, while those who believe in other religions or (shudder, gasp) embrace atheism have been historically held with contempt as "communists" or "unamerican." The mass media holds "faith" with an equal or even higher regard than reason. When an American drama or sitcom deals with matters of religion or the supernatural, you can be sure that positively portrayed believer will have their faith affirmed while the curmudgeony and "arrogant" skeptic will look the fool. Since we are a nation of willful scientific illiterates with strong religious tendencies, is it any wonder that Creationism holds sway in America? Believing that "God did it" is not only an easier to understand explanation than all that jargon about mutagens, genes, and transitional fossils; but it also doesn't place any undue stress on the superstitions we find so important to our peace of mind.

As for teaching I.D. somewhere other than our government-run biology class, we all ready do: When I was in college at UW-Milwaukee I took a basic philosophy course. The first unit of study was the question of God's existence and one of the first arguments for God's existence was the Teleological Argument or "Argument From Design," which is all I.D. really is only with a facade of pure pseudo-science and Republican politicians backing it. We also learned the flaws of this argument along with other theistic pitfalls such as "Problem of Evil" and causation chains--I credit this course with putting the seed of doubt in my head which eventually grew into atheism. Of course, it's probably very rare to find philosophy courses at the secondary school level if they exist at all. While I would hardly oppose such a curriculum, l guess that such courses would probably be as popular as small pox if offered as an elective...assuming that the average High School kid knows what small pox is.

However, the creationists don't want their beliefs taught as a matter of philosophy, and they definitely don't want Christian dogma held up against the "heathen" beliefs of non-Caucasians, like Islam or Hindu. They want Christianity taught as fact. This is why they desperately want I.D. in our science classes, in order to lend their religion the scientific credence that it could not get on its own.

This battle is way more important than what gets printed on a coffee cup.

[ceo_esq]

It's bad enough that universities give PhDs to this and other fundies to help give a facade of credibility to their disproven dogma (http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-is-science.html) ...

Are you suggesting that UC-Berkeley gave Dr. Wells a PhD in order to lend credibility to his views?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Are you suggesting that UC-Berkeley gave Dr. Wells a PhD in order to lend credibility to his views?

Wells definately legitimately earned his PhD, but he was tasked to do so by Moon in order to lend credibility to his Creationist views.

[Ducky]

I think the real crime Starbucks is perpetrating is 5 bucks for over-roasted coffee.

[bluess]

Hear, hear, fowlsound.

Shall I go to the Starbucks/Caribou/Other Fancy Brand - or the local bookstore/coffee shop where it is a local guy who sells nice lattes for $2? And doesn't try to enlighten or annoy me with printing on the cups?

[Ducky]

Hear, hear, fowlsound.

Shall I go to the Starbucks/Caribou/Other Fancy Brand - or the local bookstore/coffee shop where it is a local guy who sells nice lattes for $2? And doesn't try to enlighten or annoy me with printing on the cups?

I prefer to make my own coffee, but I will leave my enlightenment to more educated sources than a cup in a store.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Are you suggesting that UC-Berkeley gave Dr. Wells a PhD in order to lend credibility to his views?

No, I'm saying that fundamentalists seek PhDs, deceitfully vomit back what they've learned and/or tell the review boards exactly what they want to hear, and get their graduate degrees in order to lend the facade of credibility to their views. If the universities are guilty of anything, it's not denying the fundie fruitcake the sheepskin when their intentions become evident.

[Darth Rotor]

[SIZE=2]While picking up my venti vanilla latte from Starbucks
You have just proven yourself an mildly pretentious arse.

Are you familiar with the Leary rule on coffee? How about the George Carlin rule. It goes something like this:

New Rule: The more complicated the Starbucks order, the bigger the *******. If you walk into a Starbucks and order a "decaf grande, half-soy, half-lowfat, iced vanilla, double-shot, gingerbread cappuccino, extra dry, light ice, with one Sweet-n'-Low, and one NutraSweet," ooh, you're a huge *******.
Condemned by your own words, but at least it is only in a mild sense.

You have that going for you, which is nice, I think. :)

DR

[ceo_esq]

If the universities are guilty of anything, it's not denying the fundie fruitcake the sheepskin when their intentions become evident.

How are they supposed to do that? Especially a public university like the one that gave Wells his doctorate? Take two PhD candidates, each of whom has completed the same degree requirements, and deny the diploma to just one of them on the basis of some religious beliefs he holds?

[RationalReverend]

Someone can't be a Moonie and a Fundamentalist at the same time.

[shemp]

I'll add this to my list of reasons not to go to Starbucks. It'll be Reason #684.

[clarsct]

Someone can't be a Moonie and a Fundamentalist at the same time.
Says who?;)



Anyway, I wouldn't darken the door of a Starbucks to begin with, but this gives me one more reason to go elsewhere.

Were I to drink coffee, I'd rather go to the Family Diner down the road, personally. Just my own half-baked opinion. I do drink tea, and the tea they have is pretty good, and the conversations one can have over the morning paper are more than worthwhile.

We've been going at this all wrong. We've been attacking the IDiots head on, when we should be swinging for the fence sitters.

[RationalReverend]

Says who?;)



Common sense, the tenets of the Moonie cult violate the Fundamentals that give Fundamentalism it's name.

[clarsct]

Common sense, the tenets of the Moonie cult violate the Fundamentals that give Fundamentalism it's name.
Well, coming from the point of view of a skeptical athiest, my point was more that once you'll believe one form of lunacy, pun intended, what's another on top of it? Even if they are contradictatory and make no sense..well....people believe all sorts of nonsensical things.

Why would anyone be surprised that someone claims to be a Moonie Fundy, a Hindu Muslim or any number of whacky things?

Moonie Fundy? Hell, why not?

[Lonewulf]

Well, coming from the point of view of a skeptical athiest, my point was more that once you'll believe one form of lunacy, pun intended, what's another on top of it? Even if they are contradictatory and make no sense..well....people believe all sorts of nonsensical things.

Why would anyone be surprised that someone claims to be a Moonie Fundy, a Hindu Muslim or any number of whacky things?

Moonie Fundy? Hell, why not?

Sounds like Doublethink. ;)

Accepting two contradictory thoughts as true, in spite of the contradiction.

[Beerina]

That's right.

Evolution is false because we don't like abortion.

Uh huh, that's how these things work.

Evolution is false because some @$$holes used a variation on it to justify murder.

Hmmm. If murderous misuse of something devalues it, what should we consider the current state of religion?

Oopsie! I had a little thought there! Sorry, won't happen again.

[Beerina]

I think the real crime Starbucks is perpetrating is 5 bucks for over-roasted coffee.

George Will regularly points out that people whining about gas prices and "evil profiteering gas companies" have no problem pulling their SUVs into Starbucks, paying $23/gallon for coffee, and giving Starbucks outrageous profits far in excess of the oil companies.

[Beerina]

I think the real crime Starbucks is perpetrating is 5 bucks for over-roasted coffee.

BTW, those biscotti? You're lucky if each one has 5 cents of ingredients in it. My buddy made some once.

Bottoms up! Let's get back to whining about oil.

[Beerina]

Sounds like Doublethink. ;)

Accepting two contradictory thoughts as true, in spite of the contradiction.

That's also the textbook definition of neurosis, IIRC.

Drive it further, and a full break with reality occurs -- psychosis.

[hgc]

A word about Darwin and Eugenics. Yes, he very interested in Eugenics -- having to do with discouraging marriages between close relatives. His family and that of his wife, the Wedgewoods, had intermarried for generations -- lots of 1st cousin marriages. He attributed his own chronic illness (wrongly) and the various maladies of his many children (right or wrong) to the damage of the breeding practices in his own family history. His brand of Eugenics had to do with keeping close cousins from procreating, period. Anyone who implies anything else about Darwin and Eugenics is either, well you know the drill .. a) misinformed, b) willfully misinformed, or c) lying.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Sounds like Doublethink. ;)

Accepting two contradictory thoughts as true, in spite of the contradiction.

Example: There is wisdom on a $5 cup of coffee.

[Achán hiNidráne]

How are they supposed to do that? Especially a public university like the one that gave Wells his doctorate?

In the case of Marcus Ross, Rhode Island University knew well before hand that Ross was a YEC and didn't actually believe a damn word of the thesis he wrote on mosasaurs. He now teaches "biology" at Liberty University and will no doubt the marched out as an "expert" whenever a fundie wants to couch their Creationist drivel in scientific terms.

The fact that both Wells and Marcus Ross obtained said degrees so they can pollute science with Creationist drivel as part of a larger agenda doesn't bother you, does it?

Take two PhD candidates, each of whom has completed the same degree requirements, and deny the diploma to just one of them on the basis of some religious beliefs he holds?

It depends on whether or not the would-be scientist is willing to apply actually science to not just his current research but to his future research as well. In the case of Ross and Wellls, while they may have played scientist, pretending to accept current biological truth to get in, while believing that all life on this planet was "poofed" here by a invisible, unprovable, being mentioned in a holy book without any evidence, then yes, they should be denied the degree and not allowed to find a job in respectable scientific research, or worse, teaching science to our youth.

[Achán hiNidráne]

You have just proven yourself an mildly pretentious arse.


And the moderators appear to have fallen down on the jobs for not banning your "arse" for breaking forum rules.

[Belz...]

After my first run-in with stupidity and a Starbuck's coffee cup, I was relieved to find this nugget of wisdom on my latte cup this morning:

[tons of cool stuff deleted]

This battle is way more important than what gets printed on a coffee cup.

Good post, Mark.




But science IS all about Final Fantasy XII.

[Glen.Nogami]

You have just proven yourself an mildly pretentious arse.

Are you familiar with the Leary rule on coffee? How about the George Carlin rule. It goes something like this:


Condemned by your own words, but at least it is only in a mild sense.

You have that going for you, which is nice, I think. :)

DR
Also, nice resort to ad hom.

DR

It's getting to the point where I can just answer your posts with more of your posts :D.