Sunday Funny — except it’s not

I’m not a huge Doonesbury fan, but this one is spot-on:


17 thoughts on “Sunday Funny — except it’s not

  1. I don’t think Doonsbury ever made me laugh, but the desperate student’s comment made me chuckle. You’re right, though, of course. What’s worse so far as I’m concerned is that even the most “progressive” states (Massachusetts, for example) have still made efforts to censor or leave out at least some aspects of Evolutionary Theory due to protests by Creationists in ALL states. This is why many college students are surprised and unprepared by what they learn in college about evolution, fossils and even cell theory. It is really disappointing.

    • Em — I get so depressed about it. It’s actually one of the few litmus tests I have for candidates (b/c if you had too many, you’d never vote for anyone) — if they back crap like ID, I simply will not vote for them.

  2. Ha! I just sent that strip to a couple of people whom I campaigned with against having “intelligent design” taught in our local school district. In our case however, the entire science faculty at the local high school threatened to quit en masse before they would teach bogus ideology in their classrooms. The school board backed down quickly, and the holy rollers from the megachurch that tried to ram the ruling through were politely told to start their own school. They did—but they had less than a dozen students sign up. Apparently even fundamentalists want their children to go to a good college.

    • Wow — I went to a Catholic grade school and HS and was taught that the stuff in Genesis was an allegory and that I ought to listen to my science teacher in science class.

  3. What’s the difference between teaching intellectual design and the Mayan culture – Greek mythology, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. A belief is a belief is a belief – why should one be thrown out of the education system, yet others remain? Why not cover everything?

    I’ve yet to understand why the teaching of science and religion is made out to be so horrible. I don’t understand why the two ideas can’t just exist for those that want to believe – regardless of how different the ideas are.

    • Lenore — there is no reason that science and religious studies can not peaceably co-exist in educational settings. That said, only science should be taught in science classrooms. Science is based on observation, hypothesis, experimentation and objective conclusions based on data. I do not BELIEVE in evolution, I know it to be a proven biological process. I don’t BELIEVE the earth is billions of years old, geological and astronomical data show it to be fact.

      ID, creationism, Mayan cosmology, or any theology is based on subjective interpretation of faith-value statements that can not be proven and are most often beyond the scrutiny of objective testing. “God loves me.” — there is no way to scientifically test that. You can believe it, you can not believe it, and you can spend time wondering what the effect of God’s love is in your heart. That’s great. It’s not science.

      In this case of this cartoon, Intelligent Design advocates suggest that there are the remnants of “God’s hand” in creation. There is no data whatsoever to support such a claim either — no matter how much advocates try to dress their pronouncements in scientific jargon. Worse yet, they want this poorly veiled attempt to insert Christian theology into the classroom to be taught as though it were science.

      As a scientist, all we ask is that politicians keep science in science classrooms and theology out of it.

      • Great answer, Steve. I have a lot of respect for our religious communities, and many of my Christian friends understand evolution and agree with what you just said, 100 percent. For those who don’t, I think it’s important to point out one thing: yes, there are unanswered questions about Evolution. However, that does not by default give any proof of Intelligent Design. Evolution as you know has 150 years of evidence (still being discovered even all this time after Darwin), whereas there is zero evidence, as you said, of ID. ID was originally based on the idea that you could spot any object and tell if it came about naturally (a tree) or if it was “designed” (a sweater) by an intelligent being. It’s an interesting idea, but so far I haven’t even heard any evidence of that most basic concept (that we can tell), much less that there is “an intelligent designer”. No evidence. None.

      • Okay, so am I reading you correctly? In your opinion, theology is welcome in schools, but science class is not the proper classroom for the teaching of theology?

        I’m currently staying with friends – he is a scientist wanna-be and a devout atheist. He and I are have excellent debates. The fact that I stumbled upon your blog to day is timely (and interesting).

        For the record, in my opinion, politicians should keep out of many things – not just theology.

        I enjoyed the feedback. Thank you!

      • Lenore — (I ran out of nested replies) — thanks for coming by! Yes, the two should definitely be kept out of the same classroom and in a public school setting theology should probably stay away altogether! :)

  4. I was going to respond to Lenore, too, but Steve, you did a perfectly fine job! :) Nothing to add here!

    Lenore, I agree about the politicians keeping out of things…in oh so many ways. :P

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s