Nick Matzke provides us with this link over at The Panda's Thumb.

If the shirt's sentiments mystify you, by all means, read on. What the shirt lampoons is the existence of a 'transitional form' betraying the religious origins of the intelligent-design-friendly textbook Of Pandas and People, shown below:

Drafts of this text prior to the 1987 Edwards vs. Aguillard case identified advocates of such as creationists, whereas the published version makes no mention of creationism and instead refer to advocates of the book's viewpoint as 'design proponents.'
Hmmm. The former would be a definite no-no today, and both a legal and PR blunder: legal, because the above case established that it was unconstitutional to insert 'creation science' or 'creationism' into a public-school science classroom; PR, because one of the recurring tropes of the Discovery Institute (the main body pushing 'intelligent design' in the political arena) is that 'ID is not creationism.' Prior to the Dover case, DI spokespeople did everything they could to push that as the party line.

Unfortunately for such ID-evotees, during the Dover trial analysis of drafts after 1987 but prior to publication revealed that the authors of Pandas had pretty much cut out every reference to creationism and simply relabeled it 'intelligent design.' The smoking gun, identified by philosopher Barbara Forrest, was the identification of 'cdesign proponentsists' in one of the intermediary drafts, where the phrase 'design proponents" had been inexpertly inserted into the original 'creationists.' Some more of her investigative prowess is featured in the book at right.

Truly, a transitional form to celebrate! Lest we forget, however, that both the 1st (1989) and 2nd (1993) edition of Pandas claimed that there was an absence of transitional forms, citing as their example the transition from land mammals to modern whales predicted by Darwin back in 1859. How delicious, then, that a well-described sequence of fossils demonstrating the transition became well-known during the mid-1990's, as discussed in detail here and celebrated here.

How ironic that this particular claim from Pandas, in itself a legitimate scientific hypothesis, has been falsified against the Panda author's expectations, while the sub-text of Panda's 'creation' has been proven in court to be religious in origin, and thus not science in any way!


It pains me to say that I've only just now stumbled upon this meditation on pain, and how to categorize it. Fascinating stuff, and I'm going to have to research some of the peppers myself! Explore the links!


Viewable here, without apologies to Ken Ham or AIG.


I never got into RPG much, neither in person or on-line. Why? Who knows? Perhaps because when I was young I was very consciously engaged in what used to be called PLAY. Still, I have a lot of friends who will probably appreciate this eccentric web-comic.....not to mention one very smart comics scholar of a brother.



I cross-posted this over at PZ's place:

"Saying that the Discovery Institute is spreading misinformation is like saying that evolutionary biologists are spreading evolution. The DI is misinformation personified, and I think the best way to deal with them is not to dwell on their arguments, but to mock them for the lack of political effectiveness. They've produced no legislation, no reforms and their veiled threats to sue educators are clearly positioning statements with no real substance.

They are the Disappointing Institute, and we should focus on their failure to advance their own political agenda. That hurts the lawyers and the politicians a lot worse that arguing about 'dissents with Darwinism'. When we argue science with a bunch of non-scientists, it gives them a patina of respectability. We tend to lose PR points when that happens, unless our scientists are also skilled at the lawyerly reply. On the other hand, should non-lawyers focus on DI's failures to advance their own legal and political agenda, this will tend to undercut their effectiveness in general without ever putting the science up for (usually dubious) 'debate.' The stock question should not be 'what's the science?' but rather, 'why should DI, largely a bunch of lawyers, even be regarded as credible on scientific matters when they can't gain any traction in the courts or the legislature?"

My apologies in advance for our friends in the legal and political spheres who are effective, dedicated, ethical and supportive of science education."



The 'Bishop of Soul', Mr. Solomon Burke, works the crowd from a throne. Stick around to the end, when he appears to be channeling more than the Paraclete. Theatrical, and compelling in a goofy way that's hard to explain.



According to the Discovery Institute, an informational packet distributed by PBS to accompany the Nova documentary "Judgement Day" encourages teachers to violate the Establishment Clause. Why, the author Robert Crowther says that DI "has enlisted over a dozen attorneys and legal scholars....to review the PBS teaching guide with an eye to its constitutionality."

Review away, you clowns. I look forward to your definitive opinion on said subject, and on the day when you pinheads finally declare same unconstitutional I'm going to make it my business to make sure said informational packet is used in my high school science classroom.

And, while I'm at it, I'll make sure to let YOU know I'm doing it. At the same time, I will cheerfully forward you the names of some local creationists who sympathize with your windmill-tilting and dare them to call your little First Amendment bluff, friend of the court and all that. Oh, and I'll publicly contact the media, etc. etc. so EVERYONE I know will know what I'm doing, and that I'm calling ALL of you out and DARING you to sue me.

Because, you know, as Dover proved, you don't have the stomach for a court battle you know you will lose. And, when your veiled threats are shown to be just another exercise in playing lawyer, I will cheerfully mock your empty suits. I double dog dare ya!