Home » Culture, Darwinism, News » This Doonesbury cartoon tells you all you need to know about the design vs. Darwinism controversies.

This Doonesbury cartoon tells you all you need to know about the design vs. Darwinism controversies.

Here.

Except it only really tells you about the pathologies of Darwinists. Sad one.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

7 Responses to This Doonesbury cartoon tells you all you need to know about the design vs. Darwinism controversies.

  1. Check the link?

  2. You can find the cartoon here:

    http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.....011/09/28/

    It always amuses me the way actors, comedians, cartoonists, etc pride themselves on their alleged intelligence by mocking those who dissent against an unsupported theory. When I want to learn about scientific theories and evidence for/against them I look to UNcommon Descent, not pop culture. May I suggest Garry Trudeau do the same lest he embarrass himself further.

  3. I’m not sure Trudeau is really towing the Darwinist party line with that comic strip. The -over-the-top “foundation of all biology” statement makes me think he is having a bit of fun with both sides.

  4. Eric:

    Unfortunately, Trudeau is probably simply echoing the popular talking point — I have seen the certitude on [macro-]evolutionary theory favourably compared to that for atomic theory and to gravity [despite the inherently lower level of warrant that an account of unobservable origins must have] — based on something rather like Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975):

    . . . nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution

    Jerry Bergmann’s response here is illuminating.

    But on the actual matter, Trudeau is going for a Saul Alinski gotcha ridicule, strawmannisation and demonisation rhetorical trashing. As in, if you dare disagree with the High Holy Priesthood in the August Lab Coat, you must be ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.

    So indoctrinated, polarised, misled and superciliously contemptuous of those who dare differ are ever so many in our civilisation’s chattering classes that they would be astounded to learn that, for just one instance, the co-founder of modern evolutionary theory, Wallace, was a design thinker who held that the world of life provides decisive evidence of purpose, intelligence and design.

    And, if you were to point out the prevalence and scientific and societal implications of mind-closing a priori materialism in origins science, or the documentation of where such materialism predictably leads a culture since Plato in The Laws, 360 BC, they would most likely be angered, not thoughtful.

    For, to such indoctrinated, fallacy-riddled, polarised and too often closed minds, only their materialism-dominated way of seeing things could ever be”scientific” thus credible.

    To those who are thinking in a materialism dominated circle, their way of thinking is “self-evidently” true. [Actually it is simply triumphalistically circular to the point of unrecognised but patent absurdity -- the very opposite of self-evident. (As, Lewontin so memorably but inadvertently showed) . . . ]

    It is time to wake up and recognise the chains of mental slavery, see the apparatus that has set up the shadow-shows confused for reality, and break free from thralldom to evolutionary materialist ideology hiding in the lab coat.

    GEM of TKI

  5. Tried the link just now. Worked. WashPo server sometimes overwhelmed.

  6. The link was always fine. But since it is a link to your gmail mailbox, you need to give us the login and password information.

  7. He had one a few years back where a patient told his doctor he didn’t believe in evolution. The doctor asked him if he wanted antibiotics based on evolution or ones that weren’t. The point was that the patient was an idiot.

    The sad thing is that people take such sources seriously. Roger Ebert thinks he’s an expert on the subject, and so do many of his readers. But he’s just parroting everything he finds on a web site that agrees with him. He once claimed that scientists had discovered eighteen distinct evolutionary paths for eyes. He also added as evidence that rocks and stars evolve. And he was talking about the process, not the word. When people watch enough sitcoms, witty zingers start to sound like truth.

Leave a Reply