7-2-06 -- Doonesbury on Creationism and Intelligent Design.

[Harvey]

Direct link to the strip for 7-2 since the main page will change by tomorrow.

I know it's just humor and word play, but makes the point rather nicely. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

Hehehe, love it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Why must you persecute the Christians like that, Harvey?

 

[Vic]

Just to play the devils advocate, what point? Personally, I think Trudeau has been slipping the past few years, as this strip was a rather disingenious strawman. The idea of intelligent design does not exclude evolution. In fact, the only difference between ID and conventional evolutionary theory is the argument between an interventionist God and plain ol' random chance. As neither of those arguments are scientifically provable (or even valid), I think the whole bit is nothing but hot air from pseudoreligious morons (including those who wrongly worship science as a religion) pretending that they know the unknowable and trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us.

edit: and because I know that Harvey is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and will probably attack me in some "OMG the world will end because of the heretic" kind of way, let me be clear that I am attacking both sides of the argument.

 

[Witling]

Don't you think "persecute" is a might strong? I can just see my old Sunday school days. The teacher explaining that the Romans, instead of throwing Christians to the lions, would draw cartoon strips. Not force the Christians to read them, mind you, but just draw the strips. Brings a whole new meaning to the word "persecution."

 

[sandorski]

hehe, good one.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Vic
The idea of intelligent design does not exclude evolution.

Right, because one is science & one isn't.

In fact, the only difference between ID and conventional evolutionary theory is the argument between an interventionist God and plain ol' random chance.

Not at all, please go educate yourself.

As neither of those arguments are scientifically provable (or even valid),

Wrong again, before you start with the basics of evolution, go educate yourself on the basics of science.

let me be clear that I am attacking both sides of the argument.

So because of the whims of those who believe the earth is flat, you feel the need to lump people who argue the earth is roughly spherical in with them and dismiss both as unprovable theories? Idiot.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Vic
The idea of intelligent design does not exclude evolution.

Right, because one is science & one isn't.

In fact, the only difference between ID and conventional evolutionary theory is the argument between an interventionist God and plain ol' random chance.

Not at all, please go educate yourself.

As neither of those arguments are scientifically provable (or even valid),

Wrong again, before you start with the basics of evolution, go educate yourself on the basics of science.

let me be clear that I am attacking both sides of the argument.

So because of the whims of those who believe the earth is flat, you feel the need to lump people who argue the earth is roughly spherical in with them and dismiss both as unprovable theories? Idiot.

Really? So random chance is scientifically provable? I would say that you're the idiot. The current valid scientific position is not that God doesn't exist, but that God is unnecessary. Big, big difference there. Keep playing though. Your little hateful emotions and prejudices are quite amusing to watch. Goddammit, it ought to be a law that everyone believes what you believe, right? Crucify the heretics?

:roll:


Oh btw, I love the flat earth strawman. Way to show that you know absolutely nothing of history beyond what your 1st grade teacher taught you about Columbus discovering America.


edit: and I really love the fact that you editted out how I was just playing the devils advocate against both of these positions (which are a false dilemma) and instead you pretend, for the sake of flaming, that I support the ID argument. Dumbass... :roll: again

 

[Moonbeam]

We need a Vic thread where his ideas are fully fleshed out so the knee jerks can get deeper into the matter before their neurons fire.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We need a Vic thread where his ideas are fully fleshed out so the knee jerks can get deeper into the matter before their neurons fire.

No... we need a thread in which ATPN posters can become more educated as to why false dilemma is a logical fallacy. The world is not black and white. It is not divided solely into us and them, into "my way or the highway," into Republicans and Democrats, into atheists and christian fundies, or into those who circle-jerk with dmcowen674 and those who do not. Real life is analog, not digital. Science is objective, not democratic.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We need a Vic thread where his ideas are fully fleshed out so the knee jerks can get deeper into the matter before their neurons fire.

No... we need a thread in which ATPN posters can become more educated as to why false dilemma is a logical fallacy. The world is not black and white. It is not divided solely into us and them, into "my way or the highway," into Republicans and Democrats, into atheists and christian fundies, or into those who circle-jerk with dmcowen674 and those who do not. Real life is analog, not digital. Science is objective, not democratic.

Maybe you should just pick a side and stop flip-flopping already.

 

[1prophet]

I see nothing too provocative with that very safe cartoon, I say there won't be any riots over it to test our first ammendment beliefs.

 

[Theb]

Originally posted by: Vic
The current valid scientific position is not that God doesn't exist, but that God is unnecessary. <--vitriol-->

So it's the same as the "valid scientific position" on the presence of a teapot orbiting the sun and that highly-intelligent invisible rabbits live on cumulus clouds.

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh btw, I love the flat earth strawman. Way to show that you know absolutely nothing of history beyond what your 1st grade teacher taught you about Columbus discovering America.

It looks more like an analogy to me, but if it is a fallacy I think it's more likely to be a Red Herring than a Strawman, just like interjecting Columbus and 1st grade teachers is a Red Herring.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Theb

Originally posted by: Vic
The current valid scientific position is not that God doesn't exist, but that God is unnecessary. <--vitriol-->

So it's the same as the "valid scientific position" on the presence of a teapot orbiting the sun and that highly-intelligent invisible rabbits live on cumulus clouds.

Sigh... science cannot (and never will) prove nor disprove the existence of God. Thus, the entire argument -- from a scientific perspective -- is MOOT.
To address your points directly, your teapots and rabbits can be falsifiable. The concept of God cannot. More to the point, the concept of God does not inherently conflict with the observations of science. God may be, God might be... science does not speculate on the matter, nor even find the whole argument relevant.

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh btw, I love the flat earth strawman. Way to show that you know absolutely nothing of history beyond what your 1st grade teacher taught you about Columbus discovering America.

It looks more like an analogy to me, but if it is a fallacy I think it's more likely to be a Red Herring than a Strawman, just like interjecting Columbus and 1st grade teachers is a Red Herring.

Tit for tat then. His entire argument was moot, just like Trudeau's. It all stems for the false belief that evolution concerns itself with the origin of life, as opposed to the development and (gasp) evolution of life.

Sorry that you feel the need to attack the messenger...

 

[Looney]

LOL that was great!

 

[kylebisme]

The cartoon is taking a poke at strict creationists who outright deny evolution, it is not commenting on ID proponents who choose to explain evolution though faith rather than by adhering to the principles of science.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Vic
Tit for tat then. His entire argument was moot, just like Trudeau's. It all stems for the false belief that evolution concerns itself with the origin of life, as opposed to the development and (gasp) evolution of life.

BS. Consider that Trudeau begins by wondering whether the patient is a "creationist," not an believer in ID. Many, if not most, creationists do not believe in evolution and therefore the strip makes sense within that context. He doesn't even mention "ID" until the very end, when he quips about the drugs being "intelligently designed."

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Theb

Originally posted by: Vic
The current valid scientific position is not that God doesn't exist, but that God is unnecessary. <--vitriol-->

So it's the same as the "valid scientific position" on the presence of a teapot orbiting the sun and that highly-intelligent invisible rabbits live on cumulus clouds.

Sigh... science cannot (and never will) prove nor disprove the existence of God. Thus, the entire argument -- from a scientific perspective -- is MOOT.
To address your points directly, your teapots and rabbits can be falsifiable. The concept of God cannot. More to the point, the concept of God does not inherently conflict with the observations of science. God may be, God might be... science does not speculate on the matter, nor even find the whole argument relevant.

You an't prove the teapot doesn't exist because the mythical teapot has been defind to have no interatction with the real world.

 

[Theb]

Originally posted by: Vic
God may be, God might be... science does not speculate on the matter, nor even find the whole argument relevant.

We need to inform Richard Dawkins, or maybe you've decided he's not a scientist, you seem to have decided a lot of things about science.

Originally posted by: Vic
Tit for tat then. His entire argument was moot, just like Trudeau's. It all stems for the false belief that evolution concerns itself with the origin of life, as opposed to the development and (gasp) evolution of life.

Sorry that you feel the need to attack the messenger...

I don't see pointing out fallacies as an attack, but it is about as productive as discussing something with someone who uses them.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
I see nothing too provocative with that very safe cartoon, I say there won't be any riots over it to test our first ammendment beliefs.

Yes! Someone understands the humor and the reason I posted it in the first place. :thumbsup:

 

[silent tone]

Originally posted by: Vic
The idea of intelligent design does not exclude evolution. In fact, the only difference between ID and conventional evolutionary theory is the argument between an interventionist God and plain ol' random chance.

Let's try not to redefine words. Evolution is specifically defined as favorable (not random) traits becoming widespread in future generations.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
The cartoon is taking a poke at strict creationists who outright deny evolution, it is not commenting on ID proponents who choose to explain evolution though faith rather than by adhering to the principles of science.

/agree

And I thought it was very well pointed out by the "Sunday Creationist" remark.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: silent tone

Originally posted by: Vic
The idea of intelligent design does not exclude evolution. In fact, the only difference between ID and conventional evolutionary theory is the argument between an interventionist God and plain ol' random chance.

Let's try not to redefine words. Evolution is specifically defined as favorable (not random) traits becoming widespread in future generations.

Random chance develops those favorible traits. He wasn't redefining anything.

 

[kylebisme]

Natural selection is more than just "plain ol' random chance."

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Creationism describes the origin of life and its current form.

Intelligent design describes the origin of life and by extension . . . its current form. There is a small group of ID advocates that say ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive. The majority find it a convenient position when trying to argue for more "inclusive" biology lessons.

I do agree with thing . . . Trudeau has been slipping. On the otherhand, this strip was pretty good.