Doonesbury on Creationism
A new one:
And an old one:
And while we're at it, another one by someone else:
This last one's a bit ironic because I'm currently employed reconstructing alchemy experiments!
posted by Nick @ 11:46 pm
4 comments
4 Comments:
I like the older one.
Well there youo go. Somebody does read Doonesbury after all.
Cheers, Nick!
I am surprised that there are creationist med-students in Australia. What was his response? Would he prescribe good ol' penicillin for everything?
To be fair, though, creationists aren't in complete denial about this phenomenon. They just try to dismiss it as "micro-evolution", which cannot go beyond certain limits, no matter how much time. The worst example being Young Earth Creationists, for whom these limits are the "kinds" that Noah took on the Ark. Ironically, they believe that the Earth is so young that, to get from one pair of every kind to all the species and subspecies we see today they would have to believe in an evolutionary process much faster than the fastest evolutionary theory proposed by biologists!
Haven't seen Jesus Camp yet but do plan to. Apparently home schooling is a big worry here, hence that South Park episode.
I'm surprised that so many of my religious undergrads failed to capitalise Yahweh's title (not to mention His pronouns and possessive adjectives). (And I still can't get over those two Jewish students writing "G-d"! Don't they realise that it's already a euphemism?)
Better than teaching evolution in church would be teaching atheism there. Evolution is compatible with most forms of Christianity whereas creationism is anathema to all science.
Because there's no one thing called Christianity, there are millions of interpretations. Unfortunately some of those interpretations are extremely literal.
Never forget, there was a time when most Christians felt that any scientific theory that said the earth moves is incompatible with Christianity.
Post a Comment
<< Home