Flap over creationist cartoon shown in high-school class

Maybe this is missing the point, but I don't even get the metaphor. If the idea is that Evolution (Satan) is striking at the base of the Creation (Christ) fortress, possibly with success, then why aren't the Creation castle defenders doing the same? Instead, one of them is very pleased at himself for popping a single enemy balloon (with another one being inflated), one is firing in the opposite direction, and I'm not sure if the other is attacking his fellow defender, or going for the opposing castle base.

Is this supposed to suggest the creationists are disorganized and will lose the battle if they don't shape up. Obviously, it is a pro-creationist cartoon. Is it intended as a call to arms? I mean, maybe I'm dense, since this is the only clear message, so I guess that must be it.

It certainly seems far out of touch with reality even relative to the religious assumption that evolution is satanic and responsible for all the evils of the modern world. From my perspective, the creationists are quite well organized and are the ones that actually see this as some kind of battle. If it were determined by sheer strategy rather than overwhelming evidence, they'd be winning hands down. But... uh... I guess they think it is exactly reversed?

Could they at least take some pride in the success of their own tactics? If I made a similar picture as I imagine it, I would have the overwhelming majority of biologists simply doing research and not engaging in battle, but at least the ones who are fighting against, e.g. creationism in school, would not be depicted as a bunch of bumblers. Do creationists really see themselves as not only persecuted but as ineffectual? (A self-assessment that is unfortunately far too modest.)

I'm not even sure I get it. Why's the guy on the top firing off to the right? Is the guy in the middle about to fire on the guy on the bottom? Or is he just unskilled at cannoneering?

Considering that the divorce rate is higher among Christians, that balloon should be on the other side (https://www.barna.org/family-kids-articles/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released)

I believe that Utah still ranks highest for number of religious and porn usage, so that balloon should probably also go to the other side. A CNBC report suggests that several of the top states for porn usage are square in the Bible belt (Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma, Utah). The other way to look at it is that (according to various sources), there are about 75 million unique hits on porn websites per month. According to a gallop poll, 90% of all US citizens agreed with the statement "There is a God." Do some math and that results in there being about 30 million irreligious people in the US. A quick tally shows that 45 million of those porn hits would be from people who are religious. Now, this is shaky because of reporting issues and the like, but it's a reasonable assumption. If the vast majority of US citizens are religious, then at least a majority of the porn viewers are also religious.

I know of no atheist or scientist that talks about Euthanasia... except for allowance for the old and terminally ill as an option. That may be valid, but it's certainly not a requirement.

Racism? In my experience there are few groups more racist than evangelical Christians and this is from someone who was once one of them. I remember a youth retreat in Colorado when I was about 15. Out of 10,000 kids, there was one black girl... and no one ever saw her after the first night.

Humanism: an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

vs.

Christianity: the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.

Of course, we won't get into the whole, the Church of Jesus died out before the end of the Bible and what we call Christianity is really Paul's religion.

But a practice that promotes humans and reason instead of supernaturalism and belief in someone who may or may not have actually existed?? I'll take Humanism. Thanks

Those creationists remind me of "a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand.....and great was the fall of it."
(Matthew 7:26-27)

A similar cartoon https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/am/v5/n1/castle-2010.gif confirms my interpretation and makes the point more clear, with the defender on top of the tower shown asleep (ZZZZZ). I find it surprising that creationists see themselves as "asleep at the wheel." Their persecution complex seems to run deeper than I ever imagined.

Welcome to Algebra I. You are entitled to believe whatever you would like, but if your answer doesn't match the one I expect, it will be marked wrong and you will get a bad grade. You are entitled to believe that you received the wrong grade, but good luck getting it removed from your report card.

Even in their imaginations they can't fathom dealing with the evidence upon which evolution rests, apparently.

It's knowledge that arises from evolution, anti-knowledge attitudes arising from creationism. Rather telling with the teacher not recognizing that.

But what would you expect? Byers' level of "knowledge" is adequate to creationism/ID, while science would be appalled if he propagandized in favor of actual science.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Byers' level of "knowledge" is adequate to creationism/ID, while science would be appalled if he propagandized in favor of actual science. Glen Davidson

I interpreted the cartoon exactly as did Mr. Callahan, in his first comment. Check the link inside the frame, directly under the cartoon itself -- it seems that the cartoon has evolved before ending up as in Mr. Callahan's second comment. In its first incarnation, the cartoon shows Christianity threatening secular humanism, with no apparent response from secular humanism, but by the second incarnation, the foundations of creationism are crumbling. As they say in Yiddish, from their mouth to God's ears!

Seems clear enough to me. It is all about how creationists see themselves (as the good guys who play nice), and seeing the evolutionists as the bad guys (b/c they wind up supporting Satan and materialism). The Christians are playing 'nice' b/c they are merely ineffectually shooting at the undesirable balloons of materialism and humanism that pop up as a result of not strictly following Gods' Law. The evolutionists are playing dirty b/c they shoot at the foundations of Christianity. For example, we do not allow teachers to Teach the Controversy, and we use paleontology and cosmology only to support of our view that the universe is blind and purposeless.

I recognized that cartoon right away because it has been up in various forms over at the AiG website and in Ken Ham’s talks. Matt’s link is to Ham’s “Maturing the Message” explanation of the evolution of the cartoon.

Ham is the ultimate HAM when it comes to persecution complexes. He has several books and “State of the Union” talks decrying the decay of the country and the loss of the young people from his brand of fundamentalism.

He also constantly attacks other preachers and Christian college presidents for “compromising” Genesis and the literal reading of their holy book. He is at war with just about every other variation of Christianity that he doesn’t like; which appears to be most of them.

Basically Ham is a whiner clawing for a larger share of the market for his sectarian teaching materials. His vendors display got kicked out of a home school conference because he was too critical of other Christians; and he has frequently complained about that. I don’t think he has been allowed back.

The siege mentality in that cartoon comes from Ham’s own mind, but the fact that a version of the cartoon showed up in a teaching materials data base in an Atlanta school shows that there are people out there who buy into the kind of persecution complex that Ham is selling.

Ham feels so poor and picked on; and it’s all because of those secular humanists and evilutionists.

Oh; and those millions of years also.

The castle on the right represents all Christians, not just activist creationists. The cartoon is showing Christians who support theistic evolution attacking their own foundation. Some Christians are ignoring the enemy altogether. Some are just attacking issues without attacking the foundation of the issues (that would represent a church that doesn't teach against evolution but still teaches against homosexuality and such.)

I first thought it was an anti-Christian cartoon. The church is obviously losing by its own actions; the lesson is 'what is to be done?'. I really don't see how this could be indicative of a persecution conplex; it's a rallying cry. Change the language to Latin and this cartoon would fit right into a 15C Biblia Vulgata. There's a whole story here.

The author of this cartoon thinks Humanism is winning.

The central dramatic event of the drawing is the cannon shot from
Humanism into Creation [Christ], the very foundation of Christianity. Note the effect: the foundation of Christianity is reduced to
brickbats, the entire edifice is trembling, the left tower is cracked
and will shortly collapse.

The only damage to Humanism is a broken balloon.

To my mind this is more of an attack on his (presumably Hambone's) fellow, misguided, Christians, suggesting apathy, bickering and downright hostility towards each other are losing them the battle.

The suggestion that 'Racism' is one of the evils of humanism is highly amusing, coming from the 'godly' side.

I love the piratical attire of the evilutionists too!

callahanpb said: Maybe this is missing the point, but I don't even get the metaphor. If the idea is that Evolution (Satan) is striking at the base of the Creation (Christ) fortress, possibly with success, then why aren't the Creation castle defenders doing the same? Instead, one of them is very pleased at himself for popping a single enemy balloon (with another one being inflated), one is firing in the opposite direction, and I'm not sure if the other is attacking his fellow defender, or going for the opposing castle base. Is this supposed to suggest the creationists are disorganized and will lose the battle if they don't shape up. Obviously, it is a pro-creationist cartoon. Is it intended as a call to arms? I mean, maybe I'm dense, since this is the only clear message, so I guess that must be it. It certainly seems far out of touch with reality even relative to the religious assumption that evolution is satanic and responsible for all the evils of the modern world. From my perspective, the creationists are quite well organized and are the ones that actually see this as some kind of battle. If it were determined by sheer strategy rather than overwhelming evidence, they'd be winning hands down. But... uh... I guess they think it is exactly reversed? Could they at least take some pride in the success of their own tactics? If I made a similar picture as I imagine it, I would have the overwhelming majority of biologists simply doing research and not engaging in battle, but at least the ones who are fighting against, e.g. creationism in school, would not be depicted as a bunch of bumblers. Do creationists really see themselves as not only persecuted but as ineffectual? (A self-assessment that is unfortunately far too modest.)

I looked at the presentation and due to the visual impact that the right side of the cartoon is obviously losing, the variation in font, and the absurd statement about believing whatever you want, I now think it might be covered under Poe's Law. I think even a high school freshman could see the absurdity of "believe whatever you would like" in a school class. Am I alone in thinking the quality of the presentation may be substandard?.

Hrothgar said: I looked at the presentation and due to the visual impact that the right side of the cartoon is obviously losing, the variation in font, and the absurd statement about believing whatever you want, I now think it might be covered under Poe's Law. I think even a high school freshman could see the absurdity of "believe whatever you would like" in a school class. Am I alone in thinking the quality of the presentation may be substandard?.

As for the hopelessly committed creationists - creationism is a proxy for other ideas that they feel inhibited to express, at least to you. The direct connection is that they claim that the Bible, as they interpret it, rationalizes and justifies these ideas. If you take away the creationism, you take away that interpretation of the Bible, and you take away the rationalization that these ideas are moral, so this is a big deal. Those ideas are (list not necessarily complete) - 1) Women should be subservient to men, and not have access to birth control. Or divorce from abusive husbands, see cartoon above. 2) Gay people should be punished and severely discriminated against. 3) Black people should shut up about past racial discrimination and deny that it could still have lingering effects in the present - even the non-racists believe this. 4) Not all creationists are racist, in fact, a good number are basically anti-racist misogynistic homophobes, and very positive toward their black fellow misogynists and homophobes. But another good number are racist, as well, and believe that overt discrimination against black people is desirable. To get them to give up creationism, you’d have to get them to give up these ideas, because the creationism provides the rationale that allows them to hold these ideas without shame.

To me the literal meaning of the cartoon is that evolution is destroying the foundation of Christianity, but that many Christian leaders are not opposing this. The castle on the right is manned by "Christians" but they are not creationists, so they are wasting their time on lesser issues and not opposing evolution.

Having this cartoon in a classroom presentation in a public school is a gross violation of the First Amendment, particularly since it is not just rejecting evolutionary biology, but it is actually an argument in factional infighting within Christianity.

I did not look at the presentation very carefully, but Gary Hurd dissects many of the slides in the comments to the AJC article.

I doubt that simply showing this cartoon is obviously a violation of the first amendment -- does it not depend on the context in which it was shown? Suppose that the teacher had used the cartoon as a starting point for a discussion but expressed no sympathy for the creationist position? Legal opinion, please?

Matt Young said: I did not look at the presentation very carefully, but Gary Hurd dissects many of the slides in the comments to the AJC article. I doubt that simply showing this cartoon is obviously a violation of the first amendment -- does it not depend on the context in which it was shown? Suppose that the teacher had used the cartoon as a starting point for a discussion but expressed no sympathy for the creationist position? Legal opinion, please?

My friend Alert Reader tells us that the cartoon "appears on page 92 of Ken Ham's The Lie (1987 edition). The book states on the copyright page that illustrations are by Steve Cardno." The sample provided by Amazon does not include that cartoon, but the text suggests that Mr. Ham has not changed his mind about anything since 1987, if not before. I suppose he would consider that a virtue.

Matt Young said: I did not look at the presentation very carefully, but Gary Hurd dissects many of the slides in the comments to the AJC article. I doubt that simply showing this cartoon is obviously a violation of the first amendment -- does it not depend on the context in which it was shown? Suppose that the teacher had used the cartoon as a starting point for a discussion but expressed no sympathy for the creationist position? Legal opinion, please?

A commenter to the AJC article notes that The Lie is available free as a pdf. The cartoon occupies page 101 of the pdf version.

Andrew J. Petto, a former editor of Reports of the National Center for Science Education, explains in another comment how the cartoon could be usefully employed in the classroom: to illustrate that opposition to evolution is not about the science.

The Lie (aptly titled):

"There is no indisputable in-between, transitional form any- where in the world, living or fossil. What we observe are distinct groups of animals and plants, as we would expect on the basis of what the Bible teaches. Those who believe in evolution have to make up additional theories as to why these in-between organ- isms are missing (e.g., “we haven’t found them yet,” or “evolution happened so fast that it left no in-between forms”)."

Now that is one big fat whopping lie. But then again, what can you expect from someone who claims that fish came from fruit trees?

I remember seeing this cartoon (or one VERY similar to it) in a Sunday School presentation at my conservative evangelical church in the early-to-mid '90's. I was probably 10 years old at time, so I don't feel to bad admitting that it had a big impression on me. This high school biology teacher, on the other hand, should really know better than to present something so silly to her students.

someotherguy86 said: I remember seeing this cartoon (or one VERY similar to it) in a Sunday School presentation at my conservative evangelical church in the early-to-mid '90's. I was probably 10 years old at time, so I don't feel to bad admitting that it had a big impression on me. This high school biology teacher, on the other hand, should really know better than to present something so silly to her students.

The presentation seems pretty good. A little short on content maybe. The only possible objectionable part, aside from the cartoon, is the part that says:

"in this class you are encouraged to challenge everything and believe whatever you want."

Of course every good science teacher should encourage every student to challenge everything. Of course students are free to believe whatever they want. You only get to grade them on the answers they give to the test questions anyway. Speaking of which, it would sure be nice to see the questions that were used for the multiple choice parts. It would also be nice to see what answers were considered to be correct. For that matter, it would be nice to know what was said about the cartoon. That might make the difference between very poor taste and constitutionally illegal.

Matt Young said: I did not look at the presentation very carefully, but Gary Hurd dissects many of the slides in the comments to the AJC article.

DS said: The presentation seems pretty good. A little short on content maybe. The only possible objectionable part, aside from the cartoon, is the part that says: "in this class you are encouraged to challenge everything and believe whatever you want." Of course every good science teacher should encourage every student to challenge everything. Of course students are free to believe whatever they want. You only get to grade them on the answers they give to the test questions anyway. Speaking of which, it would sure be nice to see the questions that were used for the multiple choice parts. It would also be nice to see what answers were considered to be correct. For that matter, it would be nice to know what was said about the cartoon. That might make the difference between very poor taste and constitutionally illegal.

Just Bob said:

DS said: The presentation seems pretty good. A little short on content maybe. The only possible objectionable part, aside from the cartoon, is the part that says: "in this class you are encouraged to challenge everything and believe whatever you want." Of course every good science teacher should encourage every student to challenge everything. Of course students are free to believe whatever they want. You only get to grade them on the answers they give to the test questions anyway. Speaking of which, it would sure be nice to see the questions that were used for the multiple choice parts. It would also be nice to see what answers were considered to be correct. For that matter, it would be nice to know what was said about the cartoon. That might make the difference between very poor taste and constitutionally illegal.

"Encouraged to challenge everything", if taken literally, would mean, the student, so encouraged, 'challenging' EVERYTHING. Even what the student accepts as true and valid. It would mean 'challenging' things just for the sake of argument, like in a debate. At the least it's a poor choice of words. Better might be "free to challenge anything". But even that, in a high school science class, is asking for trouble and seems inappropriate to the goal of the class. The students are there to learn the science presented in the approved curriculum, not to waste the class's time 'challenging' anything their 'youth pastor' doesn't like. Actually, "encouraged to challenge everything" sounds suspiciously like a coded invitation to the creationist kids: "I have to teach this so-called 'science' and the government won't let me talk about the Truth of God's Holy Word, but I'm encouraging YOU to challenge everything. I'll give you all the time you want. Feel free."

Hrothgar said: II really don't see how this could be indicative of a persecution conplex; it's a rallying cry.

I remember seeing that cartoon in Ken Ham's insane book, "The Lie: Evolution". This book was published by Ham when he was associated with the Institute for Creation Research (the group of frauds led by Henry M Morris) before Ham went on to found Answers in Genesis.

There were other cartoons in that book that were equally ridiculous.

Joe Felsenstein said: The castle on the right is manned by "Christians" but they are not creationists, so they are wasting their time on lesser issues and not opposing evolution.

I have another thought about how I got this wrong (aside from the fact that "Kelly" parody political cartoons in the Onion get their point across better).

I saw "evolutionists" on one side and assumed "creationists" on the other. But it actually shows a battle between "humanism" and Christianity. Evolution and Creation are supposedly the philosophical foundations of these opposing camps.

This comes as a great surprise to me from both perspectives. Humanism (though somewhat vaguely defined) is certainly older than evolution. I would have thought it was at least as old the ancient Greeks. The idea that "Creation" is the foundation for Christianity is also ludicrous. I think most (not all) would consider the Resurrection to be the foundation for Christianity. Actually, there is nothing about "Creation" that even sets Christianity apart from most other world religions.

“in this class you are encouraged to challenge everything and believe whatever you want.”

I agree that it is a rallying cry, but isn’t it kind of odd for a pro-Christian cartoon to portray the foundations of Christianity as fragile?

FL said: They [the foundations of Christianity] are NOT fragile...

Both I, and Andrew J. Petto wrote critical reviews of the entire PPt presentation. When I am healthy again, I'll post mine to "Stones and Bones." AJ was much more thorough than I was. Here is a link to his comments.

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/xythoswfs/webui/_xy-e39101117_1-t_BpGCBOI4

FL said: Think about the Panda evolutionists at this website who used to be professing Christians. Such folks are quite visible, for they've honestly shared various snips of their life stories (which takes courage in a public Internet forum).

Interesting that Ham thinks that Christians are stupid and incompetent.

So long as he's using himself and his ilk as the models of Christians, well, it's understandable.

Glen Davidson

FL said: Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

FL said: Nope, not odd at all. They are NOT fragile, (Mark 13:31), **but sometimes, within people's diverse life situations**, yes they can seem to be. Just depends on an individual's life history, life circumstances (including spiritual). Sometimes it's reasons of the mind, sometimes it's reasons of the heart, as British evangelist Michael Green wrote. But one thing is for sure: The simple, beautiful faith of a child, gets attacked quickly as the child goes off to school. And one of those attackers, is the theory of evolution. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

I said: I never considered evolution inconsistent with Christian belief, and accepted theistic evolution through early adulthood. Today, I would probably go with agnostic. “Atheist” might be a better description, since I’m not aware of any evidence for God’s existence. But I think my personality is closer to people who have traditionally considered themselves agnostic.

So Floyd says that the basis of his religion is not fragile. The author of the cartoon seems to disagree. If it's so not fragile Floyd, why are you afraid to learn any science? WHy are you afraid to even watch a TV show? I think your faith is very fragile. So is any religion that tries to deny reality. Eventually everyone will see that the emperor has no clothes. It's all a scam. And as everyone knows, a house built on sand cannot endure.

DS said: So Floyd says that the basis of his religion is not fragile. The author of the cartoon seems to disagree. If it's so not fragile Floyd, why are you afraid to learn any science? WHy are you afraid to even watch a TV show? I think your faith is very fragile. So is any religion that tries to deny reality. Eventually everyone will see that the emperor has no clothes. It's all a scam. And as everyone knows, a house built on sand cannot endure.

But one thing is for sure: The simple, beautiful faith of a child, gets attacked quickly as the child goes off to school. And one of those attackers, is the theory of evolution. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

callahanpb said: ...but isn't it kind of odd for a pro-Christian cartoon to portray the foundations of Christianity as fragile? (What ever happened to "A Mighty Fortress is Our God"?) Besides that, if a belief is true, its foundations stay intact by definition, though it might be possible to deceive people about specifics....

So what's "fragile" is their influence on public policy?

Henry J said: So what's "fragile" is their influence on public policy?

FL's right about the basis of his religion not being fragile. Mainly because the basis of his religion is dishonesty and presumption, and those can morph and shift without end in order to avoid honest epistemic practices. Strong the basis may not be, but shifting sand also isn't fragile.

Yes, if they really want to destroy evolution they'll have to wage war on even the possibility of truth. Increasingly, they appear to do so (we both use the same evidence, just with different worldviews (you know, some with that horrible belief that the evidence rules, some with the enlightened view that mythology trumps all)), while pathetically claiming to represent truth.

Glne Davidson

FL said: Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. ... Now they could have simply settled for remaining Christian and yet believing in evolution (such as Dr. Francis Collins and blogger Carl Drews), but instead, somehow, for some reason or reasons, these former Christians are gone "all the way out", even to the point of abandoning theism in some cases.

What's he got against Christianity, anyway, that he keeps telling everybody that it contradicts the evidence?

FL said: Public school science teachers who want to offer science students more than the usual stale canned Darwin dogfood, MUST stay within the boundaries of current federal and state laws. That's not optional, for the sentinels are always on post. So non-Darwinist science teachers must commit themselves to learning and following the time-tested, field-tested approach exemplified in the Louisiana Science Education Act. Period. No joke. LSEA only. Here is the text of the LSEA: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/text_of_louisiana_science_educ007391.html FL

FL said:

I agree that it is a rallying cry, but isn’t it kind of odd for a pro-Christian cartoon to portray the foundations of Christianity as fragile?

Nope, not odd at all. They are NOT fragile, (Mark 13:31), **but sometimes, within people's diverse life situations**, yes they can seem to be. Just depends on an individual's life history, life circumstances (including spiritual). Sometimes it's reasons of the mind, sometimes it's reasons of the heart, as British evangelist Michael Green wrote. But one thing is for sure: The simple, beautiful faith of a child, gets attacked quickly as the child goes off to school. And one of those attackers, is the theory of evolution. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Think about the Panda evolutionists at this website who used to be professing Christians. Such folks are quite visible, for they've honestly shared various snips of their life stories (which takes courage in a public Internet forum). Now they could have simply settled for remaining Christian and yet believing in evolution (such as Dr. Francis Collins and blogger Carl Drews), but instead, somehow, for some reason or reasons, these former Christians are gone "all the way out", even to the point of abandoning theism in some cases. That should tell you something, (although it can be a sobering, not-painless issue to explore and discuss). Foundations DID get attacked; damage was indeed sustained. Have you ever read how the well-known evolutionist Daniel Dennett characterizes the Theory of Evolution? He simply calls it "The Universal Acid."

So, both Ken Ham and FL both confess that their faith in Jesus Christ is a fragile, crumbling thing that's vulnerable to to the merciless ravages of a competent education. So why would they want to boast and brag about having faith in Jesus in the first place?

I see that you contradicted yourself in the same post. You first claim that evolution and Christianity are incompatible, then two paragraphs later you name two people whom you say believe in evolution, yet (you say) have remained Christian. Nice self-goal there.

So Flawd, just what exactly is it about evolution that you don't get?

I mean, you see that organisms have offspring which inherit traits
that are almost but not quite like those of their parents, right? No
problem there?

You see that some of those offspring may themselves have more kids than others,
depending on the environment and on which traits they inherit? I mean, that's pretty clearly true.

You can see that neither of those situations requires the involvement of any gods or other supernatural beings.

Then what is your problem, Flawd? Just stubborn, bull-headed denial of reality, even though you understand it yourself? Or are you just too horror-struck, too
stupidly afraid, to face the implications of what you know to be true?

I'm betting it's the latter.

phhht said: So Flawd, just what exactly is it about evolution that you don't get? I mean, you see that organisms have offspring which inherit traits that are almost but not quite like those of their parents, right? No problem there? You see that some of those offspring may themselves have more kids than others, depending on the environment and on which traits they inherit? I mean, that's pretty clearly true. You can see that neither of those situations requires the involvement of any gods or other supernatural beings. Then what is your problem, Flawd? Just stubborn, bull-headed denial of reality, even though you understand it yourself? Or are you just too horror-struck, too stupidly afraid, to face the implications of what you know to be true? I'm betting it's the latter.

FL probably could have gone to a legitimate seminary and become an actual theologian, but he didn’t.

Defending the Foundation of the Gospel: Literal Days in the Creation Week http://www.oldtestamentstudies.org/my-papers/other-papers/recent-creationism/literal-days-in-the-creation-week/

So once again FLoyd proves that he doesn't know the meaning of the word "incompatible". BFD

Matt,
Very glad you posted this, as I had been searching for that particular comic for a while.

I think, frankly, its excellent for us to show it. First and foremost, it shows the explicitly religious nature of creationism and anti-evolutionism. A picture is worth a thousand words, and this one is worth a thousand words on why creationism is not science and teaching it would be a violation of the firt amendment.

But secondly, it ironically points out that science lets you effectively aim your cannons, while religion does not. I can't really think of a better metaphor than that. :)

FL said: But one thing is for sure: The simple, beautiful faith of a child, gets attacked quickly as the child goes off to school.

I’m not sure why you think children have a simple, beautiful faith in anything. Every small child I’ve been around is full of “why” questions. They challenge everything. Why is the sky blue? What happens if I jump off this ledge? Why do crickets chirp?

FL said: How do such questions constitue a negation (or even a diminishing) of Christian faith, Eric?

But as children grow up, they learn from Christians and non-Christians, evolutionists and non-evolutionists, blacks and whites, gays and straights alikes, that asking many "why's" DOES constitute rocking the boat for whatever group they are wanting to identify with or belong with or fellowship with. Peer pressure sets in, and people stop asking "too many" questions.

I do not fear “why questions” or “challenges” being asked of the Bible.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

I do not fear “why questions” or “challenges” being asked of the Bible.

Of course not. God did it answers everything! Glen Davidson

ogremk5 said: I'm not even sure I get it. Why's the guy on the top firing off to the right?

Floyd just doesn't get it. Child-like faith is worthless. Child-like curiosity is priceless. Floyd's religion offers no answers. The answers are found in science. When kids figure this out, they sometimes abandon religion. Floyd has lost all his child like curiosity. He is terrified to even watch a science show because he will find out the answers to his quesitons and he knows he won't like them.

In order to be accurate, the cartoon should show fundamentalists firing at evolution and destroying their on base instead. That's what Floyd does.

FL said: I love searching through AIG, ICR, ENV, (even old-earth RTB!), and other apologetics and non-Darwinist websites and books, to try to find answers. (If possible.)

FL said: But one thing is for sure: The simple, beautiful faith of a child, gets attacked quickly as the child goes off to school.

And one of those attackers, is the theory of evolution. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Think about the Panda evolutionists at this website who used to be professing Christians. Such folks are quite visible, for they've honestly shared various snips of their life stories (which takes courage in a public Internet forum).

andrewdburnett said: I also do not find the simple faith of children to be especially beautiful. Yes, they believe what they are told. It can be used to bring about desired behaviors in Children as fear of punishment is the most basic (and lowest) form of moral development. It can also make them vindictive and exclusionary. Saying that someone is "acting like a child" is an insult and for good reason. Children have yet to develop much of their empathy and social skills. The faith that I have seen that is truly beautiful always comes from adults, generally after much life experience. These people have learned that faith is not about being right about exactly what their God wants them to believe. They have learned that faith is about treating other people well and validating their experiences. Faith is not about pseudo-scientific rationalization for a set of beliefs that causes pain through its narrowness and exclusion. To me it is that faith (and not childlike gullibility) that is beautiful. I also think that it more clearly reflects much of what is actually in the Bible rather if you look at it as a whole rather than trying to fit every single jot and iota into your worldview.

The 'beautiful faith' that children have is whatever their parents have told them. Whatever they've been told. Remember Hitler Youth? Young Pioneers of the Soviet Union? Good Christian American toddlers wearing Ku Klux Klan robes, complete with swastikas?

Is childish faith 'beautiful' because of its innocence and unquestioning acceptance, or does the CONTENT of that faith matter?

How about faith in a god who, they've been taught, murdered virtually everybody in the world, and all the animals, including every single infant, baby, toddler, and child?

And it also soon became clear that, the other arguments were similarly terrible, that they had all been refuted – absolutely refuted – multiple times over the last 150 years – and that the IDers and other creationists simply didn’t care and would repeat their refuted arguments as if nothing had happened.

FL said: Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

Matt Young said:

And it also soon became clear that, the other arguments were similarly terrible, that they had all been refuted – absolutely refuted – multiple times over the last 150 years – and that the IDers and other creationists simply didn’t care and would repeat their refuted arguments as if nothing had happened.

See this article in yesterday's Times and also (slightly off-task) this follow-up by Paul Krugman.

In other words, religious people knew the science; they just weren’t willing to say that they believed in it.

Matt Young said:

And it also soon became clear that, the other arguments were similarly terrible, that they had all been refuted – absolutely refuted – multiple times over the last 150 years – and that the IDers and other creationists simply didn’t care and would repeat their refuted arguments as if nothing had happened.

See this article in yesterday's Times and also (slightly off-task) this follow-up by Paul Krugman.

It's true that children accept a lot of statements uncritically, and it's also true that they ask a lot of questions that adults are too incurious to ask, or may even be afraid to ask. This behavior is by turns refreshing and frustrating, but not intrinsically good in the sense that we as adults should hold it up as a standard. (And with great exertion I now resist the temptation to quote 1 Corinthians 13:11.)

One thing I believe is that every child should have the opportunity to exceed their own parents in their understanding of the world. This doesn't mean they need to be exposed to everything at once or that it's safe just to throw them out into the world, sink or swim. But "protecting" them from exposure to the current scientific consensus on a topic that they may actually be curious about just seems like a great way to make sure that ignorance is transferred from one generation to the next.

But one thing is for sure: The simple, beautiful faith of a child, gets attacked quickly as the child goes off to school. And one of those attackers, is the theory of evolution.

The simple, beautiful faith of children: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F79IWIzrlho

Or is it only beautiful when it's a 'faith' that FL approves of?

Anyone who reads UD knows that they really do not know the science.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

I do not fear “why questions” or “challenges” being asked of the Bible.

Of course not. God did it answers everything! Glen Davidson

But one thing is for sure: The simple, beautiful faith of a child, gets attacked quickly as the child goes off to school.

FL said:

I see that you contradicted yourself in the same post. You first claim that evolution and Christianity are incompatible, then two paragraphs later you name two people whom you say believe in evolution, yet (you say) have remained Christian. Nice self-goal there.

Contradiction? Not at all. To be a Theistic Evolutionist, invariably involves a measure of syncretism. Invariably involves a measure of cognitive dissonance. But that involvement doesn't necessarily mean you've lost your salvation through Christ. It just means you've gotten bogged down in some syncretism and cognitive dissonance. That's what it means to be a Theistic Evolutionist.

stevaroni said:

But one thing is for sure: The simple, beautiful faith of a child, gets attacked quickly as the child goes off to school.

This is true. When I was a child I suspect at some point I had absolute faith in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and babies delivered by storks. My faith was doubtless punctured by my classmates revelations as to how things really worked. Oddly, I never recall believing in God. Even as a child that just never made sense.

The "faith of a child" comments seem pretty apropos. I just looked at the free pdf of Ham's book, linked below the cartoon. In the first two paragraphs of the Introduction, he speaks of being raised in a Christian home that took the Bible as completely inerrant and of how his parents knew evolution was wrong. He asked his minister for advice, and that minister told him to construe evolution as a means of creation. But of course that's not what Ham's parents believed, so obviously the minister was wrong. The Bible is all or nothing: if any part of it is not literally true, then none of it is true in any sense at all.

Because that's how Ham was raised, and confronted with challenges to his childhood beliefs, he stuck with childhood. Why complicate things? Apparently human fallibility doesn't apply to mommy and daddy, in Ham's own case of childhood brainwashing any more than in the cases of the numerous children whom he now helps to brainwash.

I can't decide whether it's more tragic, like watching a sad cycle of abuse perpetuate itself, or farcical, like watching the shenanigans of spiritual Peter Pans. Maybe both.

Scott F said: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

mattdance18 said:

Scott F said: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

If ever there were a Bible verse creationists do not take literally, that might be it.

Oh, but that Bible verse is not a commandment. It's just a statement. And since the speaker lost the 'simple, beautiful faith of a child', he is now in hell. That's where Paul is, right? And it didn't even take evilution to do it.

Just Bob said: Oh, but that Bible verse is not a commandment. It's just a statement. And since the speaker lost the 'simple, beautiful faith of a child', he is now in hell. That's where Paul is, right? And it didn't even take evilution to do it.

mattdance18 said: It wasn’t until my mid-20’s, in graduate school, that I finally concluded that there was no reasonable solution to the Problem of Evil – except, perhaps, its dissolution, by discarding the fundamental premise of the problem in the first place. If there is no traditionally monotheistic god in the first place, then the existence of evil does not pose any deep metaphysical problems (though of course it still poses the practical and moral problems of what to do about it).

Just Bob said: Oh, but that Bible verse is not a commandment. It's just a statement. And since the speaker lost the 'simple, beautiful faith of a child', he is now in hell. That's where Paul is, right? And it didn't even take evilution to do it.

But only applies to snakes, which are already pretty good at the belly-crawling thing.

stevaroni said:

Just Bob said: Oh, but that Bible verse is not a commandment. It's just a statement. And since the speaker lost the 'simple, beautiful faith of a child', he is now in hell. That's where Paul is, right? And it didn't even take evilution to do it.

Ah. Well then, unless my recollections are totally wrong, I seem to remember that most of Genesis is "statement", not commandment, aside from 1) not touching apples, and 2) crawling on your belly and eating dirt. But only applies to snakes, whcih are already pretty good at the belly-crawling thing. Don't know about the dirt. So since all that "in the beginning" stuff is just statement, and there's not a single "thou shalt" to be found, we can ignore it, right?

Surely, that means that the ten commandments can be ignored too.

Henry J said:

Surely, that means that the ten commandments can be ignored too.

Especially that pesky one about bearing false witness...

stevaroni said: After all, how can any of us know, as none of us was there?

Malcolm said: That's one thing that I never understand about those Christians who insist that they can ignore the ugly parts of the bible because they occur in the OT and, as christians, they only need to worry about the NT: Surely, that means that the ten commandments can be ignored too.