Saturday, September 6, 2008 | Reason : Comedy | print version

Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain

by The Onion

Thanks to supernorbert for the link.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin

Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain

Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic.

DAYTON, TN—A steady stream of devoted evolutionists continued to gather in this small Tennessee town today to witness what many believe is an image of Charles Darwin—author of The Origin Of Species and founder of the modern evolutionary movement—made manifest on a concrete wall in downtown Dayton.

"I brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of Darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits," said Darlene Freiberg, one among a growing crowd assembled here to see the mysterious stain, which appeared last Monday on one side of the Rhea County Courthouse. The building was also the location of the famed "Scopes Monkey Trial" and is widely considered one of Darwinism's holiest sites. "Forgive me, O Charles, for ever doubting your Divine Evolution. After seeing this miracle of limestone pigmentation with my own eyes, my faith in empirical reasoning will never again be tested."

Added Freiberg, "Behold the power and glory of the scientific method!"

Since witnesses first reported the unexplained marking—which appears to resemble a 19th-century male figure with a high forehead and large beard—this normally quiet town has become a hotbed of biological zealotry. Thousands of pilgrims from as far away as Berkeley's paleoanthropology department have flocked to the site to lay wreaths of flowers, light devotional candles, read aloud from Darwin's works, and otherwise pay homage to the mysterious blue-green stain.

Capitalizing on the influx of empirical believers, street vendors have sprung up across Dayton, selling evolutionary relics and artwork to the thousands of pilgrims waiting to catch a glimpse of the image. Available for sale are everything from small wooden shards alleged to be fragments of the "One True Beagle"—the research vessel on which Darwin made his legendary voyage to the Galapagos Islands—to lecture notes purportedly touched by English evolutionist Alfred Russel Wallace.

"I have never felt closer to Darwin's ideas," said zoologist Fred Granger, who waited in line for 16 hours to view the stain. "May his name be praised and his theories on natural selection echo in all the halls of naturalistic observation forever."

Despite the enthusiasm the so-called "Darwin Smudge" has generated among the evolutionary faithful, disagreement remains as to its origin. Some believe the image is actually closer to the visage of Stephen Jay Gould, longtime columnist for Natural History magazine and originator of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, and is therefore proof of rapid cladogenesis. A smaller minority contend it is the face of Carl Sagan, and should be viewed as a warning to those nonbelievers who have not yet seen his hit PBS series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage.

Still others have attempted to discredit the miracle entirely, claiming that there are several alternate explanations for the appearance of the unexplained discoloration.

"It's a stain on a wall, and nothing more," said the Rev. Clement McCoy, a professor at Oral Roberts University and prominent opponent of evolutionary theory. "Anything else is the delusional fantasy of a fanatical evolutionist mindset that sees only what it wishes to see in the hopes of validating a baseless, illogical belief system. I only hope these heretics see the error of their ways before our Most Powerful God smites them all in His vengeance."

But those who have made the long journey to Dayton remain steadfast in their belief that natural selection—a process by which certain genes are favored over others less conducive to survival—is the one and only creator of life as we know it. This stain, they claim, is the proof they have been waiting for.

"To those who would deny that genetic drift is responsible for a branching evolutionary tree of increasing biodiversity amid changing ecosystems, we say, 'Look upon the face of Darwin!'" said Jeanette Cosgrove, who, along with members of her microbiology class, has maintained a candlelight vigil at the site for the past 72 hours.

"Over millions of successive generations, a specific subvariant of one species of slime mold adapted to this particular concrete wall, in order to one day form this stain, and thus make manifest this vision of Darwin's glorious countenance," Cosgrove said, overcome with emotion.

"It's a miracle," she added.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Saturday, September 6, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 32 of 32 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #243596 by slhamilton on September 6, 2008 at 10:50 am

Brilliant!

Other Comments by slhamilton

2. Comment #243607 by RigoJancsi on September 6, 2008 at 11:12 am

I saw Dawkins in my toast this morning! Find it on ebay! :-)

Other Comments by RigoJancsi

3. Comment #243609 by BlueTesla on September 6, 2008 at 11:38 am

Someone sent this to me in a FWD:FWD:FWD email, as if it was a serious article...so be on the lookout I guess.

Other Comments by BlueTesla

4. Comment #243612 by Manson on September 6, 2008 at 11:56 am

Absolutely brilliant... gotta love The Onion.

Other Comments by Manson

5. Comment #243613 by Ex~ on September 6, 2008 at 12:05 pm

This is brilliant satire.

I actually laughed out loud when Dawkins started speaking in hushed tones about how sacred and important his first-edition of The Origin of Species was to him in his latest documentary. Seriously: Darwin was NOT the first person to come up with evolution, nor natural selection, and he even neglected to publish his material until he realized other people had come to the same independent conclusion as he did.

I understand being a "Darwin bulldog" and all, especially in America where intelligent design runs rampant destroying our nation, but healthy skepticism of even the most brilliant and proven ideas and a bit of humility is important in science, or you just become another irrational faith-based robot like the creationists.

Darwin is awesome, but seriously, calm down on the worshiping, Dawkins et all.

Other Comments by Ex~

6. Comment #243615 by quantum_flux on September 6, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Hahahaha! Those Darwinians ought to win the Darwin Award.

I still maintain that the Scientific Method in combination with Mathematics and Logical Reasoning is the only way to discover the truth about the universe we live in (Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Descarte, et al). The truth about the world can not be revealed by "divine revelation" like most authority figures and religious pocket changers would have you believe. It was the Christians who stole various philosophies away from the Greek Philosophers of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle and then the Christians worked the secular logic into their dogma and creeds (one of the reasons why Christianity has gotten so big compared to other ancient religions, in my opinion, is that the Christians tailored something logical into something that amounted to a very effective meme by inverting the logic from the individual to the socialized community, same with communism too). Anyhow, it is atheists that need to take the secular logic of old and new and then redogmatize it the way it ought to be.... Survival of the Fittest, Capitalism, Free Trade, Think for Yourself, Mathematics, Scientific Method, etc and to some degree that has gradually been happening for the last 500 years or so since the Rennaissance and the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the various political wars and revolutions, and the cultural/technological progress has been growing in leaps and bounds as a result.

Other Comments by quantum_flux

7. Comment #243626 by AoClay on September 6, 2008 at 1:08 pm

I don't get the equivocation with communism there at all. Sounds like a lame way to mix what exists with what should be.

Other Comments by AoClay

8. Comment #243627 by quantum_flux on September 6, 2008 at 1:22 pm

I don't get the equivocation with communism there at all. Sounds like a lame way to mix what exists with what should be.

Read the book of Acts if you don't believe that Communism is an ideological spinoff of Christian Principles.

Other Comments by quantum_flux

9. Comment #243648 by theonlybap on September 6, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Socrates and Plato were anti-democratic and early communists. Aristotle was also anti-capitalistic. Then Aquinas of the Catholic church adopted a lot of Aristotle's views on economics.

Don't blame the Christians for communism, Socrates was its grandfather.

Fantastic article here, though! Genius.

Other Comments by theonlybap

10. Comment #243656 by Apeseed on September 6, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Read the book of Acts if you don't believe that Communism is an ideological spinoff of Christian Principles.

You could also argue that Marx's ideas are a secularised form of millenarian Judaism. After all the Christians inherited millenarianism from the Jews and although Marx's father converted to Christianity he was descended form a rabbinical family.

Other Comments by Apeseed

11. Comment #243662 by quantum_flux on September 6, 2008 at 4:27 pm

The early Christian apologists did use Greek logic to argue for their religion. Albeit, it was a very distorted argument that ran against Christian doctrine indeed. The Christian apologetics are the trojan horse that lead to the meme of Christianity. The book of Proverbs is the trojan horse that leads to the meme of Judaism.

Other Comments by quantum_flux

12. Comment #243670 by keith on September 6, 2008 at 5:53 pm

Ex~,

I actually laughed out loud when Dawkins started speaking in hushed tones about how sacred and important his first-edition of The Origin of Species was to him in his latest documentary.

Really? That's interesting.

Seriously: Darwin was NOT the first person to come up with evolution, nor natural selection, and he even neglected to publish his material until he realized other people had come to the same independent conclusion as he did.

Is that right? I genuinely thought it was Darwin who first thought of the theory of natural selection. I hadn't realised that he had neglected to publish his theory. I thought he was busy accumulating further evidence so as to make a more convincing argument. However, if you claim that he was negligent I'll believe you. Either way, please tell us who, if not Darwin, first thought up the idea of natural selection as I like to know such things. (I play for a pub quiz team. I'll await your answer with bated breath).

I understand being a "Darwin bulldog" and all, especially in America where intelligent design runs rampant destroying our nation, but healthy skepticism of even the most brilliant and proven ideas and a bit of humility is important in science, or you just become another irrational faith-based robot like the creationists.

Thank you for reminding everybody here about what is and what isn't important in science. I guess you must be a scientist yourself, right? Please tell us, in what way should we be skeptical about the theory of natural selection? I suppose we should also be skeptical about, say, the geocentric theory because that is also 'a brilliant and proven idea'? Are you suggesting that we be skeptical about all ideas? Wow, that's wild! Does this include the theory of plate techtonics?

Also, how should we show our humility in regard to the theory of natural selection, or any other theory? By claiming that these theories are no better than alternative theories? That's pretty revolutionary. You must be someone who can really think outside the box.

Darwin is awesome, but seriously, calm down on the worshiping, Dawkins et all.

Thanks for the warning. I'm sure both Richard Dawkins and the people on this site need someone to rein them in when they get too enthusiastic about a subject. Yours are indeed wise words.

p.s. 'Dawkins et all'. Do you mean 'Dawkins et al', or 'Dawkins ate all [the biscuits]'?

Other Comments by keith

13. Comment #243673 by Apeseed on September 6, 2008 at 6:22 pm

I hadn't realised that he had 'neglected' to publish his theory. I thought he was busy accumulating further evidence so as to make a more convincing argument.

The poster is probably referring to Alfred Russell Wallace who had independently come to the same conclusions regarding speciation and evolution.
As I understand it, Darwin held off publishing more for fear of the effect it would have on his wife and other Christian believers in general than for lack of evidence but overcame that when he learnt that Wallace might beat him to it.

Other Comments by Apeseed

14. Comment #243674 by Laurie Fraser on September 6, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Ah, Keith - beautiful. I was going to post words to the effect of "quantum flux, you're an idiot - fuck off", but your post makes anything like that redundant.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

15. Comment #243676 by Laurie Fraser on September 6, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Thanks, Sarmatae - my absolute mistake. My apologies, quantum, I misread the post author.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

16. Comment #243682 by irkulyen on September 6, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Hey! I have a pile of dog shit that looks just like Jesus Christ. Anyone want to buy it?

Other Comments by irkulyen

17. Comment #243707 by Jivlain on September 7, 2008 at 2:57 am

keith: Patrick Matthew discovered natural selection a quarter of a century before Darwin, but thought it fairly obvious and published it in an appendix to "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture", of all things, and did not develop it much, nor extend it as far as the origin of species.

William Wells also figured something along the general lines, though his only applied to skin colour, though it does seem he suspected it could apply further.

In addition, there was Edward Blyth, but it seems he was something of an essentialist.

Darwin noted Blyth's work in the first chapter of On the Origin of Species, but was not aware of Wells or Matthew at the time of publication, though he later acknowledged both.

Other Comments by Jivlain

18. Comment #243710 by Communist on September 7, 2008 at 3:18 am

theonlybap wrote:

Socrates and Plato were anti-democratic and early communists. Aristotle was also anti-capitalistic. Then Aquinas of the Catholic church adopted a lot of Aristotle's views on economics.

Don't blame the Christians for communism, Socrates was its grandfather.

Fantastic article here, though! Genius.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Plato's ideal state was a rigid class state in which the different strata in society should not intermarry, and shout limit social interaction to what was strictly necessary. Also, only males above fifty should be allowed to study philosophy. This is right wing politics, not communism. Plato's view of history was one of degeneration over time, away from an ancient ideal society. We find this again in later right wing thinkers like Oswald Spengler, Leo Strauss and Osama Bin Laden.

It does not make much sense to say that Aristotle was anticapitalist either. Capitalism as a social system was not relevant to the ancient greeks.

Other Comments by Communist

19. Comment #243718 by keith on September 7, 2008 at 4:17 am

Jivlain,

Thanks for the info. I'm amazed that more people prior to Darwin didn't notice references to natural selection in that classic of its time, "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture", a book that must have graced the bookcases of every self-respecting household!

Other Comments by keith

20. Comment #243719 by Laurie Fraser on September 7, 2008 at 4:24 am

Comment #243710 by Communist

And then we get quantum_flux's assertion "Read the book of Acts if you don't believe that Communism is an ideological spinoff of Christian Principles".

What is it with many of the posters on this site and their ridiculous prejudice - as if the "evil of communism" is something that goes without saying? And to tie it to early Christianity - oh my.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

21. Comment #243720 by keith on September 7, 2008 at 4:54 am

Apeseed,

As I understand it, Darwin held off publishing more for fear of the effect it would have on his wife and other Christian believers in general than for lack of evidence but overcame that when he learnt that Wallace might beat him to it.

You may be right. However, I believe that Darwin was initially only reluctant to draw out the consequences of his theory as they related to mankind, since these could indeed have shocked both his wife and others. The Origin of Species only touches on this subject implicitly.

I still think that the main reason for Darwin's delay in publishing the Origin of Species was because he foresaw the storm that his ideas would cause and felt he had to be on very sure ground before going public.

Either way, whether he was reluctant to shock his wife or wanted to prepare a water-tight case, neither of these explanations can be described as 'neglecting to publish', as Ex~ suggested.

Other Comments by keith

22. Comment #243722 by NMcC on September 7, 2008 at 5:52 am

It looks to me more like Bishop Brennan, and anyone who says differently deserves a good kick up the arse!

Other Comments by NMcC

23. Comment #243724 by Richard Morgan on September 7, 2008 at 5:54 am

WARNING - Attention-seeking post!

I would like to invite you to listen to a song I have composed, kindly interpreted by a friend of a lovely person I met here.

HEALING

http://www.myspace.com/morgansoriginals

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

24. Comment #243725 by bluebird on September 7, 2008 at 5:54 am

This slice of Onion is delicious!! We loved it! Personal coincidence-- we were discussing this very subject while supping last eve.

Off Topic: Saw this tidbit recently. Not surprisingly, the Pope (and others) have their bloomers in a bunch over this: http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/pope_hopping_mad_over_crucified_frog__556379

Other Comments by bluebird

25. Comment #243731 by Mbee on September 7, 2008 at 7:13 am

Comment #243725 by bluebird

Off Topic: Saw this tidbit recently. Not surprisingly, the Pope (and others) have their bloomers in a bunch over this: http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/pope_hopping_mad_over_crucified_frog__556379

Interesting. It is not as if Jesus was the only one crucified.
How come the Christians feel they have a moratorium on the cross symbol. It is also strange that they chose the cross, I guess if Jesus had been hung they would all be worshiping at the noose! ;<)

Other Comments by Mbee

26. Comment #243732 by Murky on September 7, 2008 at 7:51 am

Comment #243725 by bluebird

Or his COCK...Hmmmmmmm

Other Comments by Murky

27. Comment #243748 by quantum_flux on September 7, 2008 at 9:01 am

Communism = Christian Socialism = ecconomical perpetual motion = Maxwell's Demon = Moses' Burning Bush that Doesn't Consume Itself as Fuel

You can't get any energy out of the system unless you put some form of energy into the system.... call it activation energy. You can't just create energy from nothing.... and the same goes for work. Communism is only still around because of cheap slave labor and oil I believe.

Other Comments by quantum_flux

28. Comment #243759 by keith on September 7, 2008 at 9:25 am

quantum_flux,

Communism is only still around because of cheap slave labor and oil I believe.

This is a little too deep for me. Could you spell it out?

I'm not sure but maybe all you are saying is that Communism is still around because we don't live in a perfect world. If this is indeed what you are saying, where does the oil come in?

Other Comments by keith

29. Comment #243774 by quantum_flux on September 7, 2008 at 10:05 am

I'm not sure but maybe all you are saying is that Communism is still around because we don't live in a perfect world. If this is indeed what you are saying, where does the oil come in?

>Crude Oil and Total US Petroleum Imports

As of May 2008:

Russia-> 119 thousand barrels of crude and 441 thousand barrels of petrol per day

Brazil-> 318 thousand barrels of crude and 335 thousand barrels of petrol per day

Venezuela-> 1.030 million barrels of crude and 1.171 million barrels of petrol per day

And that is just oil being sold to the US alone. Forget about Chinese sweat shop labor though. I guess with such a huge population, China would go broke if it tried to pay its citizens an actual wage that is compareable to US wages. Save for Starbucks and McDonalds (okay capital enterprize in general) being allowed into China, people would still be living in small farm towns instead of in huge metropolis cities such as Shanghai. Even then, however, the Chinese do run on their own domestic coal though, and I've never seen a harder work ethic in the general populace than I did visiting China. Free market capitalism is working it's charm there I tell ya, even if at half capacity! I think China is in a transition stage, I seriously do. If the US stops sending manufacturing business to China (I'm looking at Walmart) and starts producing domestic oil (I'm looking at the Oil companies), we'll stay competitive in the world economy.

Other Comments by quantum_flux

30. Comment #243781 by mordacious1 on September 7, 2008 at 10:36 am

Bluebird

That is the worst avatar I have ever seen.

(ps. Go Raiders)

Other Comments by mordacious1

31. Comment #244156 by mrgoodjob on September 8, 2008 at 11:28 am

That stain looks like Chewbacca to me.

Other Comments by mrgoodjob

32. Comment #282709 by firinne on November 12, 2008 at 4:14 pm

quantum_flux: That's not an inherent flaw of communism, it's the fact that in a global, interconnected economy, the minority system fails.

Other Comments by firinne

Reload Comments | Back to Top