Darwin Was a Fool: There is a God

[beam me up scottie]

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Excellent

I've always liked my religious doctrine skewered and cooked to a turn. :toast:

[beam me up scottie]

2. I agree.

Nicely done!

[Wilber_Stool]

3. I'll rec this one.

Excellent.

[beam me up scottie]

5. "Nothing vaguely resembling evolution could have produced a species capable of excreting stupidity,

"viciousness, cowardice, murder, cruelty, hatred and self-destruction in such unlimited volumes."

Best argument against evolution yet.

[n2doc]

4. ...and we were created in His image

'enough said.

[beam me up scottie]

6. "We must question the story logic ...

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.

- Gene Roddenberry

[moggie]

7. Nice quote

OTOH, if I'd launched William Shatner's career, I think I'd keep quiet about mistakes and blame.

[beam me up scottie]

16. For giving us Mr. Spock, he gets an infinity of passes.

[mike_c]

8. THAT was well done....

I need a full sized version of the graphic for my office door (in the Biology dept, where it will get LOTS of attention)!

[Evoman]

9. There are many people...even scientists...who believe this little part:

"That species evolve through the process of natural selection over millenia ascending into a condition of greater and greater superiority"

I know this little bit of ignorance is not believed by the cartoonist, just the character, but you'd be suprised the number of people (even "pro-evolution") who believe this.

Anyways..funny enough cartoon. Just thought I'd take the opportunity to bitch.


on edit (my bitch is actually more with the word "ascending" that superiority. Whereas I suppose it's technically true that forms may be more "superior" in terms of survival in an environment, I hate that people think that species are getting "better" instead of "better adapted". Throw a "superior" species into another environment, and it may not live very long).

[frogmarch]

10. Well said!

I'd been trying to think of how to word the very same thing, but now I can forget it, because you did it perfectly. :thumbsup:

[Silent3]

11. I suppose you might call a species "superior"...

...if it's capable of adapting to and surviving in a broad array of environments, both existing and potential, without further genetic adaption to beyond the point of speciation.

Humans could well be considered "superior" to most other species in that regard. If you look at broader categories of life that include collections of species (say, termites) the narrow category of the human species might not be so "superior" by comparison, but comparing our individual species to other individual species we humans look pretty good in the adaptability and survival department.

Even if we're also capable of massive destruction of life, including our own, that's probably not a huge threat to the survival of our species as a whole. It's very unlikely that we'll ever kill ourselves off completely. We could wipe out 99.999% of human life and there would be still be plenty of us left to start over again and rebuild the species.

Further, while there are many modern species which can only survive within very narrow environmental constraints, the legacy of a couple of billion years of evolution has probably produced a bigger, better built-in "bag of tricks" for adapting to environmental changes, both within a few very adaptable species and collectively among species, such that it might be fair to say that many modern life forms are collectively "superior" to earlier, more "primitive" life forms.

For all of the damage we humans have done and are doing to the environment, the human species also currently stands the greatest chance of protecting life on our planet from mass extinction due to asteroid or comet impacts, and the greatest chance of spreading life on this planet to other planets, the greatest form of protection an evolving biomass could hope for.

[Evoman]

12. I don't disagree with what you are saying.

I just don't like the language we often used to potray evolution...it gives people the wrong idea of how it all works. You and I may know what we mean by "superior" in an evolutionary context, but many people do not.

[Silent3]

13. I know what you mean: the mistaken idea of evolution working toward...

...a particular goal, as if humans or other "higher lifeforms" were a pre-ordained result, as if there were a plan being executed, or as if there were some sort of conscious desire behind evolution to "advance".

[uberllama42]

17. Damn you and your fact fetish

Haven't you heard? We need to stop being rational and fact-oriented, otherwise we'll never beat the Republicans. We have to rely on lies about Sarah Palin, because only using her actual faults to criticize her is being too nice and limp-wristed.

Get with the program. Facts are for losers.

[joshcryer]

14. The problem is that human society has used nature as an example for how it should be formed.

Social Darwinisim, the basic idea arguably going back before Darwin ever existed (humans have observed the food chain and trophic levels before Darwin), has been a scourge to human society all this time.

There's a reason the world "specialize" derives from "specie." Humans see other humans as other classes of individuals, rather than as part of a homogenous species capable of being one with itself.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. The Theory of Unintelligent Design has always made a lot of sense to me.