Blue Steel, I hold no grudges, as far as I am concerned we are all just a few streams of Data here unless we evolve into something more, I will never take anything too personally. I guess that is why we write comments back and forth, so we can better understand each others views.

JerryWayne, your telling me that none of this is true? Oh man! Thanks for that heads up. Guess I can unload the bomb shelter.

(We need only look no further than our political landscape today to find this “faith held” anarchy. It seems a sizable number of people in our country believe variously that Pres. Obama is not an American citizen, is a secrete Muslim, is THE anti-Christ, and/or is plotting to overthrow our democracy in order to bring forth a fascist dictatorship. Needless to say, there is no real evidence for any of these ideas.)

As someone who is interested in cryptozoology as an interesting subject but a scientist who demands critical thinking in a field that often lacks a good deal of it I think the shirt is a playful design that shouldn’t offend anyone.

The AA shirts in general are great… pro science/pro education, well designed and have proven to be thought provoking conversation pieces when I’ve worn them. Keep up the good work, Jeremy! Glad you were able to stop by and clear things up.

I wondered about the posted tee shirt controversy because the inclusion of a “jackalope”, the fictitious tourist post card creature, did not fit in with the cryptids also pictured. So it seemed odd that creationists would make such an allied appeal, one that would undermine their point of view by seeming overtly spurious. Then we learn the tee was meant as a spoof of the Intelligent Design movement, linking it with another “pseudoscience”, cryptozoology (according to the tee’s designer).

I must disagree with fmurphy’s post above, or at least some of it. The problem with the ID movement is that it really isn’t just a discussion among scientists. The ID movement really isn’t much of a science movement at all. It is a political movement that has sought to by-pass the scientific establishment altogether and present its case to the public as if it had scientific standing. In this the IDers have not won the scientific debate; they instead are attempting an end around by trying to directly influence school boards (who are sympathetic to the “Put God Back Into The Public Schools” movement), newspaper editorial boards, documentary producers and so forth.

Also disconcerting, we seem to be living in an era of information anarchy. Fmurphy mentions the anti-Darwinian work of M. Behe as if the biology professor has a case. In fact, Behe’s argument from “irreducible complexity” has been critiqued by many mainstream scientists and has been rejected. Yet, it is still being presented by IDers, such as Fmurphy above, as if it is a persuasive case against Darwinism even if at a molecular level. If this means anything, it means that there is a growing erosion of common, objective understanding and in its stead we are finding more “faith held” propositions presented as if factually known.

(We need only look no further than our political landscape today to find this “faith held” anarchy. It seems a sizable number of people in our country believe variously that Pres. Obama is not an American citizen, is a secrete Muslim, is THE anti-Christ, and/or is plotting to overthrow our democracy in order to bring forth a fascist dictatorship. Needless to say, there is no real evidence for any of these ideas.)

As for cryptozoology, it has yet attained status as a scientific discipline. I think it is hurt in this state of affairs by its inclusion of fortean and paranormal elements. If cryptozoology theorists want to hold to fortean and paranormal worldviews, then the only way there will ever be scientific recognition for cryptozoology would be in a total paradigm shift in what is science and what science can ascertain about the universe we live in. In this view, cryptozoology is a would-be bedfellow of creationism because creationism desires a similar shift in order to include the supernatural in scientific discourse.

I prefer cryptozoology make its case within today’s science, and not seek, like the creationists, to shift to a new paradigm that will probably be, in the end, nothing more than “faith held.”

Um, it wouldn’t?

How could it, all by itself?

Darwin’s theory came from his observation of everything around him, and how neatly organisms fill practically every nook and cranny available on the planet. Available information seems to fit that model.

I’d be curious to know how you think the discovery of one animal would influence ANY theory about how nature as a whole works. No animal discovery – or plant, for that matter – has had much of an influence on Darwin’s theory. Except to provide more information that seems to fit his model well.

I think that the sasquatch, for example, whatever it is, is spectacularly well adapted to northern temperate-zone environments. Nothing about its existence would seem to cast any aspersions at all on Darwin’s theory.

You can’t lump Cryptozoology into religious issues like intelligent design. One is geared on the usage of the scientific method and the other is about the denial of science and its methods.

You can’t lump Cryptozoology into religious issues like intelligent design. One is geared on the usage of the scientific method and the other is about the denial of science and it’s methods.