Atheism Culture Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design theism theistic evolution

A thoughtful cartoonist wonders, who has a problem with evolution?

Spread the love

Closing out our religion coverage for the week, there is an interesting series of cartoons from Jordan Collver at Nautilus, on why people do or don’t “believe in” evolution. Here’s one panel:

Some notes:

The girl at middle left seems to be a fan of Berra’s Blunder (describing the outcome of alleged unintelligent natural processes by citing as examples the known product of explicit design). But the blunder is accepted in science literature today.

The guy at middle right seems to believe that he can put his faith in “Jesus” and just accept the fully naturalist atheism on which “evolution,” as understood in most media today, is grounded. Most science journals would make short work of his “Jesus” as a mere construct of an evolving brain. But then, if he is fully post-modern, he may see the situation that way too and think it’s okay.

Cartoons? Come to think of it, Dilbert’s creator, Scott Adams, was a notorious doubter of Darwinian dogma, possibly because Dilbert, Wally and the Pointy-Haired boss didn’t just somehow evolve…

See also: Berra’s Blunder revs up again

Will Provine on evolution as the greatest engine of atheism ever invented

and

Berra’s Blunder splutters yet again

3 Replies to “A thoughtful cartoonist wonders, who has a problem with evolution?

  1. 1
    Silver Asiatic says:

    The last frame above is mistaken. It’s saying that even with a large amount (piles of books) of ‘the right’ information on evolution, that people will still not accept it.

    If the arguments for evolution were convincing, then more people would accept them. The counter-arguments against it are far stronger.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Your link is dead News.

    Here is the video I think you were referring to:

    Dogbert Evolution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjhbtCWHj1g

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    Our beliefs are too often based on unsubstantiated feelings. Which is really our self worth is based on unsubstantiated feelings. Anything that is contradictory to our self worth and their related unsubstantiated feelings must be rejected.

    In other words emotions determine beliefs not evidence and logic. It is as old as mankind. For areas that have nothing to do with self worth, evidence and logic will prevail. (e.g. how to fix the faucet that is leaking)

    That is how/why many of the anti-ID people behave. Use science everywhere except where it might contradict their self worth. Leads to cherrypicking of evidence and logic. And to the nit picking we see with the anti-ID people. It will even lead to mocking as we have seen with many thoughtful efforts here to explain ID. Look at how gpuccio’s efforts have been treated by many.

    Also prevalent in politics as well as religion and some other areas of science. All the logic in the world will have little effect. People do and will change on many things but it will probably not be due to appeals to reason and evidence.

Leave a Reply