The Case Against Evolution – turning Chick on its head!!
From Old Earth Ministries by way of my friend Michael Roberts. Covers the scientific bases clearly and comprehensively, before exposing the contorted theology of Young Earth Creationism, and the arrogant presumption of its claim that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.
Disclosure: I see difficulties with religious beliefs, but these are not increased (perhaps the contrary) by our knowledge of evolution, and since they are not my difficulties it is not my place to comment on them, other than to point out that the YECist claim to “own” Christianity (or any other religion) is plainly false
Peddling and Scaling God and Darwin
Another good strip cartoon arguing for evolution in the style of Jack Chick – without the spite
Source: The Case Against Evolution
Posted on June 18, 2018, in Charles Darwin, Creationism, Evolution, Fossil record, Religion and tagged Bible, Creationism, Jack Chick. Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.
Interesting comic. But I take issue with the following statement in one of the panels:
“Darwin’s view that evolution must be gradual and constant has been replacement by Punctuated Equilibrium.”
Having now taken college courses in evolution and the history of the idea, I now realize the whole Gould/Eldredge PE thing is something of a hoax.
We learned a lot about George G. Simpson. It was he who first posited that idea that evolution moved at differing rates, that microevolution was enough to explain macroevolution. His book Tempo and Mode in Evolution define the different rates (basically fast medium and slow) and the different modes–phyletic, quantum, etc. It still shows evolution as a gradual process, just not working at a uniform rate.
It’s no exaggeration to say Gould and Eldredge plundered Simpson’s ideas in order to become famous. They disgust me. “Punctuated Equilibrium” is nothing new. Simpson was a paleontological hero who has become all but forgotten by the public.
Useful information, thank you. I don’t know enough to comment on your claim that Gould and Eldredge were consciously claiming credit for what they knew to have been put forward earlier by Simpson, and certainly important ideas often turn out to have deeper roots than is generally realised. I also think that Gould exaggerated his claim to different from Darwinian gradualism, something that he came to regret when this was seized on by the creationists.
I see a strong resemblance between the false dichotomies of gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium in biology, and catastrophism versus uniformitarianism in geology. What looks smooth from a distance appears jerky on closer inspection, and I suspect this is true of any complex process.
Paul, my bio professor was pretty clear that Gould was an impostor of sorts. We read an early essay in which Gould claimed that the reputation of Richard Goldschmidt–a saltationist!–would one day be rehabilitated. Saltationism would put the punctuation in PE. Gould later modified his position.
After the semester was over, I read SImpson’s Tempo and Mode in Evolution, and I couldn’t for the life of me see the difference between Simpson’s description and Gould/Eldredge’s idea. I should read it again. Simpson’s “phyletic evolution” is the equilibrium. “Quantum evolution” is the punctuation.
By the way–there’s an interesting article on the internet with the stunning title, Ritual Patricide: Why Stephen Jay Gould Assassinated George Gaylord Simpson.
Thanks. For readers who want to follow up on this, the article mentioned is from a reputable source, details at http://chicago.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.7208/chicago/9780226748597.001.0001/upso-9780226748610-chapter-18, availabe through academic libraries
Excellent stuff I had not realised that the old earth Christians had taken up the battle so confidently. I agree that evolution should not be a stumbling block but in our modern day and age there are lots of problems in accepting Christian doctrine. It seems to me that Christianity is a very subtle and clever way of sidestepping the flawed nature of Man. Man needs a saviour since he can’t save himself , and of course this may well prove to be the case the way things are going. The Buddhists tell us that we can save ourselves by enlightenment , but the path is a steep and tough one especially for pleasure seekers as most of us are. I suppose the Buddhists give us innumerable chances since the next life may prove more effective at changing us than this one. Curiously both of these great religions give us the chance to escape the hand of death something that worries the majority of the living. I had to smile when I read that Stephen Hawkins voice was beamed into space and aimed at a black hole about three thousand light years distant, perhaps it was his one chance of immortality , never the less he will go down in history.
Given that the Bible is not an authoritative text on either science or history, citing it to support evolution is neither here nor there. Why not “The Cat in the Hat”?
Like YECs, he can’t help trying to convert everyone to Christianity, can he? Why on earth would he believe he knows the truth? And why should I believe him? I would suggest reading “The Raft is not the Shore”, and worry about the log his eye instead of the mote in anyone else’s.
As I said in my intro, I liked this summary of the evidence, and rebuttal of the claim that YECism is necessary for Chrisina belief or even in any way implied in the Bible, read in historical context. I think that is important, since it points out how those to whom such things matter can escape from YECist spiritual blackmail. Beyond that, as I say, the theology is not my concern