My New Darwinalia® Product Line
| September 11, 2005 | Posted by William Dembski under Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design |
I’m planning a new product line of Darwin paraphernalia — Darwinalia®. The first item is set to go — “Darwin in a Vise” (already advertised on this blog here).
The next item I would like to produce is what I call “The Darwin Quaffer.” In the old days, before girly men, my forebears used to go into battle and, if victorious, take the skull of a defeated foe and use it as a cup. What I propose is a life-sized head/bust of Darwin in which the head pops open and there, immediately available, is a simulated skull ready to go as a drinking cup.
If anyone is handy with animated gif images and can provide an electronic mock-up of this item, I’d be grateful. As with all of ID, the important thing is first to have the concept. Production can then follow as a matter of course.
I own the domain name www.darwinalia.com and am looking for investors in this project. Needless to say, I have many other product ideas.
52 Responses to My New Darwinalia® Product Line
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
My vote goes toward a Darwin Chia-Head. Stick it on the window cil and watch that green beard grow. In this case, no watering is required. The beard will develop without any feeding.
“What are going to do with the “peppered mothsâ€Â?”
Simple. Have the moths be like a beanbag, then have a target board to hang on the wall. On this board is velcro in the form of trees. The goal is to throw the moths at the board and have them stick to the trees.
How about pin the moth on the tree?
How about a collection of bobbleheads of famous Darwinists, each one sporting a copy of “On the Origin of Species” and preaching it in a religious fashion? They could be bundled with famous examples of evolution that everyone knows from biology textbooks such as fruit flies, the peppered moth and horses.
I’ve always been annoyed by people who have the Darwin fish on their cars, maybe ID needs its own symbol, something that mocks Darwinism.
Icons series t-shirts:
Evolution of man:
o o o o o o o o o o
/|\ /|\ /|\ /|\ /|\ /|\ /|\ /|\ /|\ /|\
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
Haeckel’s embryos:
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
octopus lizard crow shark darwin elephant rhino cheetah
(I’m afraid that a proportional is going to destroy my lovely, highly advance artwork, but you can copy/paste it into some other app, with fix-width fonts to get the “full effect.”)
I love the bobbleheads idea. Dawkins, Dennet and company require bobble-arms to show them preaching the Gospel of Darwin.
Panda’s thumb pocket knives.
Out of topic:
Look at the big amount of responses to this post (36) and many of the last ones here (25, 36, 37, 29, 50, etc). Then compare it with the amount of comments in April when this blog started. It has experienced an interesting and fast growing.
Qualitative: “I think you should sell macroscopic models of amino acids and have an instruction manual show how to build the bacterial flagellum  kind of like a 3D puzzle. This would be both educational AND entertaining. ”
That’s good, but I’ll take it a step further: Provide detailed instructions on how to put it together following the correct evolutionary path. Oh, wait…Yeah, right…Nevermind.
David
Davis writes: “Here’s a thought: Make a Richard Dawkins Halloween mask with a battery-powered speaker that plays some of his classic quotes. It’s funny you made this entry, because I was just thinking the other day that I would like to dress up as Dawkins for Halloween – complete with that ridiculous “Atheists for Jesus†t-shirt. Really, can you think of anything scarier than that?”
Yes, Daniel Dennett wearing one!
How did people make money during a paradigm shift? The t-shirt idea would probably work. Where do I send the check? Ticker: DRWN? I am interested.
So… wasn’t Bill supposed to be on the Dailey Show tonight?
I couldn’t help but notice that the tone on this blog has deteriorated of late. Yes, Dawkins tends to lead with his nose and this, combined with his monumental arrogance, creates an almost-irresistable temptation to bloody it, even if just a little. But as Bill has said elsewhere, the high road is so much better:
“This is a nasty debate. …It’s therefore tempting to respond in kind. Our work is not interpreted charitably, so let’s not interpret our opponents’ work charitably. They nitpick, so let’s nitpick in turn. They capitalize on insignificant mistakes and oversights, so let’s return the favor. Responding this way hurts us. We come across as churlish and catty. Precisely when the other side throws civility and courtesy to the wind is when we need bend over backwards to address any legitimate concerns that our opponents might be raising. (emphasis mine) This keeps us on topic and maintains our composure. This is important because maintaining composure under pressure is especially effective for establishing one’s credibility.”
Food for thought.
-sb
There’s enough “high road” debate on this site to justify some occasional fun. Good satire is neither churlish nor catty nor necessarily uncivil.
The quotation is from Bill not me–interestingly enough, from the article posted in the thread immediately preceding this one. Just wondering how (or if) this applies here, because this sort of mocking derision seems to be exactly what he’s arguing against.
-sb
I understood precisely who the quotation was from. But I think you may be confusing acceptable satire (of which I believe Charlie the most proficient) with “mocking derision” or, in Mr. Dembski’s parlance, churlishness. I take exception not with Bill Dembski’s quote, but of your opportunistic parsing of it.
“…this sort of mocking derision seems to be exactly what he’s arguing against.”
Dembski’s reason:
“This is important because maintaining composure under pressure is especially effective for establishing one’s credibility.”
That’s true. Apparently he wants to make some fun to have some fun but one cannot be a satirist and a scientist. So I suggest murmuring about the science of things ad naseam like the cold toads and all their toadies do. Apparently it is important to have credibility these days since few people seem to know very much and most have to accept knowledge based on “credibility.” Credibility seems to make ignorant people think of Darwinism: “It seems absurd, counter-intuitive and goes against common experience and common sense. But once some people thought that earth being round was absurd and scientists disproved that. So if someone has scientific credibility then pretty much everything they say is scientific which means it is just about true even if it seems absurd and stupid. After all, if you disagree with a scientist then that’s just like saying the earth is flat or somethin’.”
Given the importance of credibility ID fellows have to have crediblity and don’t get to make fun to have any fun.
[Boring. Goodbye. --WmAD]
nostrowski:
First, a disclaimer: I certainly do not agree with Dawkins’ views, or his communication style, or his arrogance, which as far as I can tell, is pretty profound.
Having said that, I’m not sure what “opportunistic parsing” means in this case: 1) the opportunity was provided by Bill, who, like I said provided the cite in the thread previous to this one, and 2) the section I quoted didn’t distort his original meaning at all.
I suppose our difference comes down to the definition of what “acceptable satire” is. My opinion is that repeated references to Dawkins as “girly man,” or his “sun dress” or breast size is neither acceptable nor satire. It’s just ad-hominem crap–and juvenile to boot. Are you sure you want to adopt a position in which you’re defending stuff like that?
If the point of this blog is to provide a forum for the already-converted to mock the opposition and consequently yuk it up, then I suppose that’s OK–Bill can create what ever kind of forum he wants to. On the other hand, if, as was mentioned in the afore-mentioned article, we should be concerned about those he calls “nonpartisans,” then keeping our comments relevant–both in terms of the “logos” and their “ethos”–is something we should be concerned about.
steveb: Simply put, steveb, if the high road means you can never let your hair down, I prefer to seek an occasional detour. Is it possible that you take things too seriously? And, for the record, I didn’t say that there was no churlishness evident anywhere on this site, I said I thought you might be confusing satire with mocking derision. I gave you an example of satire (charlie) and you give me back man boobs,(though admittedly, I laughed out loud at that too). My point remains, despite your deflection. I see charlie as acceptable satire and, so, as you insist on talking about man boobs and sundresses (neither of which occured on this thread), do you. If your problem is the latter, why not address it where it is?
PS: I don’t require your disclaimers.
This, especially, is priceless:
These board game ideas are great.
Is there one where you put all the pieces on the board, roll the dice and then do nothing but wait for the game to play itself?
“I didn’t say that there was no churlishness evident anywhere on this site” OK, then you agree with me, at least in part. I also didn’t say that I thought it _all_ was (yes, the board game thing was funny), but that the general tone had deteriorated of late, and that this tone was not consistent with the principles laid out in the paper.
The paper, BTW, is a good one and well worth reading.
-sb
sb: I don’t disagree with your intent. I disagree with your placement. This Darwinalia thread was harmless fun. It was the Dawkins cruise picture where you might have called people back to their senses. Thus the parsing allegation. I do not think, though I cannot speak for anyone but myself, that Bill Dembski had acceptable satire in mind when he called for an end to churlishness. But, we split hairs. I’ll read the paper.