Creationist Cartoon

[MoonStarer420]

This is from a "newspaper" in my area called the Onion.
It's 1.3MB, kinda big.

MoonStarer420 Reviewed by MoonStarer420 on 02-28-2006. Creationist Cartoon This is from a "newspaper" in my area called the Onion. It's 1.3MB, kinda big. Rating: 5

[Oneironaut]

Funny! Unfortunately, there isn't really a God to talk any sense into these people. We have to do it ourselves: http://www.natcenscied.org/

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

hahahaa that was good. i still believe something of a god did start the initial spark to create the universe, but after that, whatever might be god had a hand in only the mental aspect thereafter, no physical embodiment or interaction, completely thoughts.

but that was still hella funny

[MoonStarer420]

It just so happens someone wrote an editorial about teaching both "creationism" and evolution in the classroom a few days ago in my Schools paper. Someone just wrote a great response today.

Original Article:
"Faith's place in science and seeing the good of both sides"


"Evidence trumps faith
As a professional scientist, I was disappointed to read Shannon McMartin's comments in Thursday's Daily guest column "Faith's place in science and seeing the good of both sides." McMartin has obviously thought deeply about this issue, but I take issue with several of her conclusions.
First, faith, which I take to mean belief without evidence, is the polar opposite of science. If science were a car, evidence would be its gasoline. People like me don't have faith in the scientific method, we have spent the majority of our lives finding evidence that science provides an efficient engine for answering questions about the world that we live in. The systems of science and faith have zero in common.

Second, the scientific theory of evolution explains how different forms of life develop. Without doubt, this natural explanation best unifies all of our accumulated biological knowledge. This is what a scientific theory does; explains evidence and makes testable predictions. McMartin makes a misstep in logic when she states, "Neither evolution nor intelligent design should be barred from being broached as scientific theory. You cannot prove one or the other." The "provability" of an idea is not what makes it a scientific theory, it must explain evidence and make testable predictions. Intelligent design fails both of those requirements.

Third, McMartin is obviously correct to say that no one witnessed the beginning of life. However, evolution has nothing to say regarding the origins of life, only the origins of species. This is a subtle, but important distinction. The relevant question is, how do we investigate this question of origins? Do we follow the intelligent design crowd and throw up our hands, claiming the answer is impossible to reason about? Or should we follow the path that has taken us from the "faith-based" initiative that was the Dark Ages to our current times; ask questions, gather more evidence, unify our observations with the ideas that most straightforwardly explain the situation. Only one of these approaches deserves to be taught as science."

Eric Barnes
astronomy postdoctoral student

[Oneironaut]

For those who believe in God, I think this Catholic priest makes a good point about how evolution denial actually belittles God:
http://www.catholic.org/national/nat...y.php?id=18540