Matt Brauer posted Entry 1691 on November 18, 2005 10:31 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1686

From London comes the astonishing news that the unmistakable image of Charles Darwin has appeared in the bottom of a postdoc’s frying pan. Scientists around the world1 are puzzled about the possible mechanism that might have resulted in the 19th century naturalist’s portrait being deposited on the suface of a cooking utensil.

In one attempted application of the Explanatory FilterTM it was found that the probability of this occurance is less than that of fairy circles appearing to form a mole on the face on Mars2. (This is, coincidentally, precisely equal to the probability that Nicholas Caputo would have hit David Berlinski if he had fired an arrow at Albert Einstein’s door during a total solar eclipse.)

fa_1.JPG

Scientists say that the object’s being specified is beyond doubt. An anonymous fellow of an anonymous Intelligent Design PR firm, when asked on background and off the record, responded that “Objectively, we can only conclude that the image was designed by an intelligence3, perhaps by means of infinite wavelength radiation emanating from the stove of the discoverer’s flat.”

It has not yet been ascertained whether the pan’s dicoverer was cooking spaghetti at the time the image appeared.

The owner and discoverer of the miraculous pan has opened bidding for the object on ebay. All proceeds from the sale will benefit the American Civil Liberties Union, which conserves the civic values – including freedom of religion supported by the separation of church and state – of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.

1One in London, one in Princeton.
2Work not shown.
3Maybe supernatural, maybe not.

[Comments have been closed for this thread. Please continue the conversation at After the Bar Closes.]

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #58623

Posted by darthwilliam on November 18, 2005 11:16 AM (e)

Let the bidding begin!

Comment #58627

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 18, 2005 11:40 AM (e)

lol.
Very funny.

What is the reference to

infinite wavelength radiation

Infinite wavelength seems like an obscure way to describe a straight line.

Comment #58629

Posted by Matt on November 18, 2005 11:45 AM (e)

William Dembski once famously (and seriously, AFAICT) asserted that God could introduce new information into a system by means of infinite wavelength radiation.

Laugh track goes here>

Comment #58630

Posted by Jim Ramsey on November 18, 2005 11:53 AM (e)

Will my tin-foil hat protect me from infinite wavelength radiation?

Comment #58631

Posted by Mike Walker on November 18, 2005 11:54 AM (e)

Uh-oh - the black halo surrounding the image proves beyond all doubt that Darwin was a tool of Satan :-(

Comment #58635

Posted by PaulC on November 18, 2005 12:09 PM (e)

Sorry, I’m pretty sure that’s not Darwin, but some kind of cephalopod space alien. The eyes are just way too low on the huge, domed cranium. I grant that the tentacles are too blurred to make out, but that can probably be explained by recent sunspot activity interfering with the transmission.

Comment #58636

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 18, 2005 12:10 PM (e)

lmao @

Uh-oh - the black halo surrounding the image proves beyond all doubt that Darwin was a tool of Satan :-(

Or maybe the pan has been exposed to heat. I know my explanation is not as rational as yours But Teach The Controversy Damn You!

Comment #58638

Posted by NJ on November 18, 2005 12:23 PM (e)

Holy Calphalon, Batman!

Comment #58639

Posted by Worldwide Pants on November 18, 2005 12:24 PM (e)

I have reached the unassailable conclusion that the postdoc needs a raise so he/she can afford a new pan. My argument is formalized in my new monograph, No Free Pans.

Comment #58649

Posted by BWE on November 18, 2005 12:40 PM (e)

You’ve got it all wrong. I checked my sources and this is definitely the gay telletubbie reading Harpers. CHeck it out, You know I’m right.

Comment #58650

Posted by BWE on November 18, 2005 12:41 PM (e)

You’ve got it all wrong. I checked my sources and this is definitely the gay telletubbie reading Harpers. CHeck it out, You know I’m right.

Comment #58651

Posted by Julie on November 18, 2005 12:41 PM (e)

I think the image looks a lot more like Newton than like Darwin. And I think that a disclaimer to this effect should be posted to warn eBay bidders!

Comment #58661

Posted by Matt on November 18, 2005 1:04 PM (e)

Julie wrote:

I think the image looks a lot more like Newton than like Darwin.

Oh, come on Julie! That’s just plain silly!

Comment #58670

Posted by Matt on November 18, 2005 1:22 PM (e)

BWE wrote:

You’ve got it all wrong. I checked my sources and this is definitely the gay telletubbie reading Harpers.

I have no doubt at all that the “gay” teletubby (“Tinky-winky” for those of you who don’t have children under two) reads Harper’s (though he’s not necessarily gay, just really odd, unlike the solid and upright LaLa) there is clearly no inverted triangle antenna on the head of the image. Tinky-winky it is NOT.

As an aside: did you know that in real life Tinky-winky is over ten feet tall? True fact!

Comment #58672

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on November 18, 2005 1:27 PM (e)

Will my tin-foil hat protect me from infinite wavelength radiation?

Considering that infinite wavelength radiation has no energy [*], that may actually look like overkill.

[*] DISCLAIMER: This statement applies to all States except Kansas, which has recently gained an exemption from the application of the laws of physics, according to their new science curricula. Wearing of tinfoil hats may be recommended there; ask your physician for guidance. The scientific community as a whole assumes no responsibility for any inadvertent transfer of information via zero-energy/infinite wavelength radiation to non-tinfoil-hat-wearers in Kansas.

Comment #58675

Posted by BWE on November 18, 2005 1:31 PM (e)

That upside down triangle comes off when Harpers comes out. My daughter has one (a toy actually, a ten foot one couldn’t fit in her room) and I’ve seen the top come off. I can only assume that the real Tinky WInky know how to put it back on.

Comment #58687

Posted by Jack Krebs on November 18, 2005 1:51 PM (e)

Wonderful comments - let’s just all ridicule these guys to death, declare victory, and be done with ID.

Comment #58689

Posted by william on November 18, 2005 1:57 PM (e)

The black ‘aura’ is most assuredly a ‘black hole’. It is not an image of Darwin, it is the “Holy Ghost”. This should be enough to educate all you atheists that all ‘life’ is part of “God’s Pan”.

Comment #58694

Posted by Julie on November 18, 2005 2:11 PM (e)

Oh, come on Julie! That’s just plain silly!

Are you saying that Newton wasn’t as intelligent as Darwin? Why can’t we teach the controversy between intelligent Newtonist and random, undirected Darwinist frying?

Comment #58695

Posted by Apesnake on November 18, 2005 2:12 PM (e)

Is this an omen that Darwinism is in crisis after all? An “out of the frying pan, into the fire” kind of deal? Is it God’s way of telling us we are going to hell? I’m scared.

Isn’t the “New Jerusalem” supposed to be a big square thing - like the state of KANSAS!?! Oh dear, now I am bothered and fretful.

I know that evolution is true but what if the wackos are right and God is more impressed with gullibility than intelligence? He never told us to be clever; he told us to believe what we are told! I like science and truth all stuff but I don’t want to go to hell over it.

One thing is certain, until this creepiness is sorted out I am staying away from all things fried.

Comment #58697

Posted by k.e. on November 18, 2005 2:25 PM (e)

I remain skeptical.
I think someone designed it.

Comment #58702

Posted by Dan Hocson on November 18, 2005 2:28 PM (e)

Was the pan, by any chance, used to prepare a spaghetti dish or other pasta recipe?

Ramen

Comment #58706

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 18, 2005 2:37 PM (e)

The image appeared in a pan.

Pan is traditionally depicted with hooves and horns….what else do we need to know? ;-)

Comment #58708

Posted by Mark Smith on November 18, 2005 2:51 PM (e)

That’s enough proof for me! Time to get Intelligent Frying into the science curriculum.

Comment #58709

Posted by BWE on November 18, 2005 2:53 PM (e)

Pat Robertson has just declared spaghetti to be henceforth called “God Loving Noodles With TOmato Sauce From THe GOd Fearing USA”

Comment #58716

Posted by Tim on November 18, 2005 3:15 PM (e)

That’s not Darwin at all. It’s John Paul II from the waist up.

Comment #58720

Posted by Albion on November 18, 2005 3:20 PM (e)

No it isn’t; it’s Santa Claus.

Comment #58726

Posted by Mark Smith on November 18, 2005 3:40 PM (e)

I’m serious about getting IF (Intelligent Frying) introduced into the science curriculum. I can justify my scientific theory using the irredelicous complex argument. Without all the ingredients, there are so-called “gaps” in the taste and smell (or as my collegues call it, the “missing stink”). All the ingredients have to be there to explain the final aroma and taste, otherwise it’s not food. Therefore, food must be irredeliously complex. Can anyone please explain these gaps? Of course not. Only IF can. I rest my case. And, oh yes, my theory has been peer-reviewed (but not in any of your so-called biased scientific journals).

Comment #58732

Posted by inwit on November 18, 2005 4:12 PM (e)

It has not yet been ascertained whether the pan’s dicoverer was cooking spaghetti at the time the image appeared.

More likely, she was using the pan to reduce a rather complex sauce.

Comment #58733

Posted by Apesnake on November 18, 2005 4:41 PM (e)

Tim wrote:

That’s not Darwin at all. It’s John Paul II from the waist up.

Or Saint Barnabas from the waist down.

Comment #58735

Posted by shenda on November 18, 2005 4:56 PM (e)

Andrea Bottaro:
“ [*] DISCLAIMER: This statement applies to all States except Kansas, which has recently gained an exemption from the application of the laws of physics, according to their new science curricula. Wearing of tinfoil hats may be recommended there; ask your physician for guidance. The scientific community as a whole assumes no responsibility for any inadvertent transfer of information via zero-energy/infinite wavelength radiation to non-tinfoil-hat-wearers in Kansas.”

Jack Krebs:
“Wonderful comments - let’s just all ridicule these guys to death, declare victory, and be done with ID.”

Henceforth, I feel that we should all refer to Kansas as the Voodoo State or something equally ridiculous. While it won’t affect the fundies, it just might tick off the normal folk in Kansas enough to vote out the BOE.

Comment #58736

Posted by snaxalotl on November 18, 2005 5:25 PM (e)

sorry - it’s not Darwin, it’s God from Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Comment #58738

Posted by Graculus on November 18, 2005 5:30 PM (e)

Dammit! snaxalotl beat me too it.

The crumbly bits look like parmesan, definitely a sign of a noodly appendage at work.

Comment #58739

Posted by william on November 18, 2005 5:33 PM (e)

“Image of Darwin ‘miraculously’ appears on bottom of frying pan.” This simple edit might boost slumpish bidding?

Comment #58740

Posted by Lamuella on November 18, 2005 5:37 PM (e)

If that’s newton, is it the Isaac Newton of Gastronomic Theory?

Comment #58742

Posted by Andrew Mead McClure on November 18, 2005 5:49 PM (e)

William Dembski once famously (and seriously, AFAICT) asserted that God could introduce new information into a system by means of infinite wavelength radiation.

How– I am someone who is close to completing a math minor, and I find myself wondering this question almost every time Dembski comes up– how is it, again, that Dembski continues to get away with claiming that he is a mathematician?

Comment #58745

Posted by CJ O'Brien on November 18, 2005 6:09 PM (e)

No, no. It’s prop from a PSA commercial, airing in Kansas. From the copy:

“This is your brain.

This is your brain on Darwin.

Any questions?”

Comment #58749

Posted by steve s on November 18, 2005 6:23 PM (e)

(This is, coincidentally, precisely equal to the probability that Nicholas Caputo would have hit David Berlinski if he had fired an arrow at Albert Einstein’s door during a total solar eclipse.)

An African Berlinski, or European?

Comment #58753

Posted by Mark Studdock, FCD on November 18, 2005 6:47 PM (e)

Frickin Hilarious!

Although to be fair, according to my possibly inadequate understanding or knowledge of Dembski’s work, I believe that the image given above would not actually make it through the explanatory filter. Not exactly complex enough and by far not entirely specified.

MS

Comment #58763

Posted by Michael Hopkins on November 18, 2005 7:29 PM (e)

It looks more like Santa to me.

Comment #58764

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 18, 2005 7:34 PM (e)

Does anyone have contact with the pan peddler?
She should be informed about this thread. Bloody funny.
I am sure she would appreciate it, especially when you look at where the cash will be heading.
Seller must have some sympathy for the pro-science cause.

Comment #58766

Posted by Dave Carlson on November 18, 2005 7:37 PM (e)

They key here lies in where the image appears. A pan. What is the name of our closest living common ancestor? That’s right: Pan troglodytes. Obviously, the Chimps are sending us a sign that they’re really the ones calling the shots on this planet and that they aren’t going to put up with any more crap from uppity relatives. I, for one, welcome our new Knuckle-Walking overlords

Comment #58772

Posted by Stephen Elliott on November 18, 2005 7:56 PM (e)

Posted by Dave Carlson on November 18, 2005 07:37 PM (e) (s)

They key here lies in where the image appears. A pan. What is the name of our closest living common ancestor? That’s right: Pan troglodytes. Obviously, the Chimps are sending us a sign that they’re really the ones calling the shots on this planet and that they aren’t going to put up with any more crap from uppity relatives. I, for one, welcome our new Knuckle-Walking overlords

I was under the impression that mice where the rulers and most intelligent species on Earth. Indeed the Earth was built for them as a supercomputer to calculate “the meaning of life the universe and everything”.
Dolphins come in 2nd and we humans 3rd.
(Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy).

Comment #58776

Posted by CJ O'Brien on November 18, 2005 8:07 PM (e)

Ah, yes.
And the proof that mice are super-intelligent? Why, they’ve been experimenting on us so successfully all these years.

Douglas Adams, we hardly knew ye.

Comment #58790

Posted by Cherizac on November 18, 2005 8:57 PM (e)

It’s NOT Darwin.

It’s Marie Antoinette.

Comment #58791

Posted by Thinker on November 18, 2005 9:01 PM (e)

In the olden days, the Inquisition would burn heretics at the stake, perhaps in some odd symbolism of where they believed the victim’s soul was heading.

Now, slightly modernised and with the big D man having replaced Satan as the object of their hate, they have become the “Fry D” movement…

Comment #58797

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 18, 2005 9:25 PM (e)

So long. And thanks for all the fish.

:>

Comment #58798

Posted by Mike Syvanen on November 18, 2005 9:26 PM (e)

Do not wish to intrude on the humor and merriment of this thread, but will insert this observation on the political developements since last week’s election. The point we should think about is that the ID crowd suffered a devastating defeat last Teusday. The fact that those 8 Dover school board members lost has had major political repercussions. Note the following facts.

Santorum, who supported ID two years agoe just came out and said it has no role in science education in public schools. (He is running for office in Pennsylvania after all).

George Will in a recent piece came out against ID.

Krauthammer also soundly denounced ID.

This means that on the extreme political right two of the more analytical political commentators and one so far successful opportunist are fleeing from the ID bandwagon.

I think we are winning this one. Rational conservatives seem to be fleeing from the nutcase fundamentalist that have pushed this issue onto the Republican Party.

Comment #58803

Posted by Thinker on November 18, 2005 9:39 PM (e)

Mike:

I agree, at least I sincerely hope we are “winning”.

Widening the picture, it may even be that the recent debate over how this country based its decision to go into Iraq has meant that the concepts “truth” and “reason” have gained a bit of ground. If the I word in ID is of the same quality as the “intelligence” that led to the invasion, perhaps those running for office less than a year from now prefer to cosy up to truth and reason instead…

Comment #58804

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 18, 2005 9:50 PM (e)

I think we are winning this one. Rational conservatives seem to be fleeing from the nutcase fundamentalist that have pushed this issue onto the Republican Party.

Some of us, of course, are old enough to recall that the very same thing happened back in 1987 when the Supreme Court shot down creation ‘science’ once and for all. Everyone scrambled to distance themselves (at least publicly) as far away from the creationists as they possibly could.

The fundies, of course, will simply do the very same thing they did back then — “intelligent design” will morph into some new euphemism, the Republicans will continue to give them a political figleaf, and in 20 years we will be doing this all over again. Again.

Unless …. . You yourself have pointed out the key. The ID/creationists can’t get ANYWHERE without the political support they have from the Republican Party. The best way to prevent the ID/creationists from another Phoenix-like rising out of the Dover ashes is to kill that political support. And the best way to do that is to make sure that the Republicans who support the fundies lose elections, and KEEP losing them, until they sever themselves from the fundies.

And that means *you*, Republican party members.

If the fundies become a liability to the party, the party will drop them like poison. So, *make* the fundies a liability. Vote against pro-fundie Republicans, and more importantly, let everyone KNOW that you are, let them know why, and let them know that you will *continue to do so* until the fundies lose their political support. And if that means the stinkin liberal Democrats will be winning elections for a while … well … then maybe the Republican Party ought to re-consider its options.

The alternative is to keep electing Republicans, who will keep supporting the fundies, and nothing will ever change.

It’s your party. Take it back.

And no, I am not a Democrat.

Comment #58806

Posted by Gary on November 18, 2005 10:39 PM (e)

First, it is clearly not Charles Darwin. Darwin never wore a wig, at least not in polite company.

Now from the style of the wig we can clearly surmise that this is a depiction of someone around or shortly after the Restoration. To suggest that is is Marie Antoinette is ludicrous. She would have appeared in a French crepe pan, not an English frying pan.

So our main contenders are Isaac Newton, Charles II, or Samuel Pepys. On the evidence, I’d have to go with the latter since this apparition was clearly sent in code. In which case the proceeds should probably go to support Royal Naval Benevolent Society rather than the ACLU.

Comment #58810

Posted by poolboy on November 19, 2005 12:35 AM (e)

Absolutely Hilarious! And yet absolutely TRUE!

My hats off to all the hopeful writers of the Daily Show:

Andrea Bottaro - For his “Disclaimer”

Inwit - For “she was using the pan to reduce a rather complex sauce.”

With my fav being:

William - “This should be enough to educate all you atheists that all ‘life’ is part of “God’s Pan”.”

Tooooo Funny

Comment #58812

Posted by Scrawny Kayaker on November 19, 2005 1:26 AM (e)

But African Berlinskis are non-migratory.

Thanks to all for the cheeriest thread I’ve seen here!

Comment #58813

Posted by Mike Walker on November 19, 2005 1:30 AM (e)

So true, Lenny. There must be enough of pro-science Republicans around to take the fundamentalists on, but all the same, it must be demoralizing for these more moderate people when the leadership of their party has spent so much time and effort courting the fundamentalist wing.

Hopefully the trouble that Rove, Libby, and the rest now find themselves in will embolden the more moderate members of the party to ensure they will no longer be held hostage by fundamentalism.

Rick Santorum, a man who has been lionized by the right of his party, is 20 points behind his Democrat challenger for his Senate seat. It’s no coincidence that he declared last week that he is now against ID being taught in schools (he was for it before he was against it :).

I personally would be quite happy to see the Republicans spanked by the Democrats in next year’s election (full disclosure, and all), but it’s probably equally, if not more, important for Republicans to stop and reverse the seeping fundamentalism that seems to have infected the party.

I blame Karl Rove for a lot of this. The irony of all this is that I don’t think that Bush is “one of them”–Rove just knew that fundamentalists were their ticket to the White House. If and when Rove finally goes down, the country will be a better place for it.

Comment #58816

Posted by Mike Syvanen on November 19, 2005 2:43 AM (e)

Mike said:

I don’t think that Bush is “one of them”

Do not be deceived, but he is most likely one of them.

Comment #58823

Posted by the pro from dover on November 19, 2005 7:19 AM (e)

As a lifelong republican you can imagine how distressing the last 5 years have been to me not being able to vote for president at all. Although Colorado is a very republican state,so far the destruction of science education hasn’t become a focal point although catholic educators are starting to make ominous rumbling noises. James Dobson our most worrisome powerful fundamentalist is too obsessed with gay marriage to so far get involved with this as are Marylin Musgrave and Wayne Allard who are 2 of our 8 representatives. John McCain is my kind of republican and deserves support. What ever happened to people such as Nelson Rockefeller, Bill Scranton, Howard Baker, John Anderson and George Romney? Is there no place for them in the Karl Rove dominated party of today? The republican party was once the voice of the small independant buissness person such as myself. It seems that there is nowhere to turn.

Comment #58826

Posted by bluesquid on November 19, 2005 7:43 AM (e)

Frying pan seller has updated ebay ad with a link to panda’s thumb. Seller says she is receiving requests for “Sewall Wright woks” but unfortunately seller’s wok is of higher quality than seller’s frying pan.

Comment #58845

Posted by Matt on November 19, 2005 11:38 AM (e)

I believe that we’ve just been graced by the appearance of the Keeper of the Frying Pan (bluesquid, above).

Those of you who have doubted her revelations had better return to the Straight and Narrow, or we might just see some smiting.

Comment #58847

Posted by Mike Walker on November 19, 2005 11:54 AM (e)

Do not be deceived, but he is most likely one of them.

I dunno - you may be right, but there were those secretly recorded tapes where he expressed distate for the anti-gay rhetoric coming from the fundamentalist wing. I suspect a lot of fundamentalists would be surprised by the thoughts and behaviour of their president away from the public eye.

But hey, what Bush says and does in his private life doesn’t really matter in the long run. It’s his (Rove’s) public statements and policies that affect things like the acceptability of ID in the classroom.

Comment #58864

Posted by william on November 19, 2005 3:54 PM (e)

The president loves his job, period. He did, and will do anything to keep it. ‘The Bush Dyslexicon’ by Mark Crispin Miller explores the struggle within Dubya. ‘Bush On the Couch’ by Justin A. Frank is another source to understanding this man. Both are thoughtful critiques.
George is one cocky little cowboy and nobody’s gonna git in hiz way. Problem is, hiz way is very straight and very narrow, jes’ like Barbara learned ‘im.

Comment #58881

Posted by Matt on November 19, 2005 6:09 PM (e)

Comments are being closed for this thread. Please continue the conversation at After the Bar Closes.