Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Cut to the Darwin

Earlier today, I was walking to the library when a man offered me a copy of The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin off the stack he was holding. This is a first for me - normally I get accosted by Christians of various stripes with New Testaments or LaRouchians with comparisons between Obama and Charlie Chaplin. I asked him if he was affiliated with something and he told me it was the 150th anniversary of the book. Not really an answer to the question.

As it turns out, this is just another prosthelytizing scheme - evangelist Ray Comfort writes a looong introduction about all the possible problems with evolution how intelligent design and creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution.

Welcome to another tactic: pretend to care about science in order to promote creationism.

I am all for having the works of Charles Darwin around my apartment, but I'm not so into the idea of having Ray Comfort's.

SO
I did a quick redo of the book design and let my brain rest from impending exams.

The original book:
And my version:
His eyes are creepy. In retrospect I should have realized this would be the case before cutting them out. I didn't actually spend any time planning or considering - it was pretty spur of the moment, as I'm sure one can see in the precision of the lines.
The Ray Comfort part:
The actual Darwin part:
The back cover:
The red line was cut from scrap from the cover and crosses out Ray Comfort's name, and the photo of darwin was taken from a page I removed and is placed over Comfort's final words before the book ends.

And now the philosophical question ensue!
Is it hypocritical of me (with my dislike of censorship) to literally cut Comfort's ideas out of this book?
Does this count as bowdlerizing, even though it's just my edition?

As this is my personal copy, it says "The Origin of Species on the Cover," not "Ray Comfort's Origin of Species," and I am not in any way infringing on or preventing the distribution of Comfort's ideas, I am going with the premise that this is just a symbolic reclamation of Darwinism and a wonderfully therapeutic way to take a break from surface integrals.