Here's to science!

[TheReasoner]

Thought I'd share this:

 

[AV1611VET]

Cool!

Looks like someone got into Jack Chick's studio and made a tract that has a psychic, a new-age doctor, and a creationist all being compared to a scientist.

Good going, depicting a Neapolitan-flavored trio of carefully-selected persons, disappointed at not being able to apply their beliefs to crime-solving, curing diseases and important discoveries.

Isn't it a shame that your mailman can't find a way to kill those pesky weeds in your lawn? or your local taxi driver can't find a higher-octane gasoline? or your local grocer can't find something to lower the pH in your topsoil?

But scientists can, can't they?

Well ... my friend ... for your information ... our mailman, taxi driver and grocer can live next to a scientist with no problem.

Can your scientists live next to us with the same peace of mind?

And for the record, I can't leave your little ridicule-ladden OP without pointing out that the girl in that tract got a present in a cubed box, but the present itself is a Galaxy Star 2000 refracting telescope, which would come in a rectangular box.

Perhaps your comic strip should have been authored by someone with a little less zeal to ridicule creationists, and a little more attention to detail?

I always love it when someone is so gung-ho to push their anti-creationist propaganda, that they overlook minor or major details.

 

[Elendur]

I find the tone to be more anti-pseudoscience than anti-creationist. But also more pro-science than anti-pseudoscience.
(Also, I would want to point out that the box isn't cubic when she opened it, it is rectangular. Though it is not the same rectangular shape as the opened one)

 

[AV1611VET]

I find the tone to be more anti-pseudoscience than anti-creationist.

So do I.

My point though is that a creationist was included in the lot.

I don't understand the attitude some people have that it's a creationist's job to be out there doing lab or field work.

"Creationist" is not a synonym for "scientist."

 

[jpcedotal]

I believe in God and science, that's why I am a YeC.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe in God and science, that's why I am a YeC.

Be careful now ... you'll be expected to pass a science board with flying colors (spelling and grammar optional).

 

[Radagast]

Science is super-fantastic! I love it!

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, I would want to point out that the box isn't cubic when she opened it, it is rectangular.

And it's just this kind of overlooked details that lead to things like babies born without feet or it raining astronauts.

Do you know what they drill for now in the Gulf of Mexico?

Water.

I see this guy is an astronomer ... look at the last panel and tell me if you see anything amiss; like all the stars at the same magnitude, not to mention their configuration.

Does this guy even know what a constellation is?

I know I'm being pedantic, but slipping in a creationist with crystal balls, Tarot cards and horoscopes brings out the best in me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is super-fantastic! I love it!

Yup ... it'll treat us so many ways ... we'll have to love one of 'em!

 

[CaliforniaSun]

"The universe is cool enough without having to make crap up."
- Phil Plait

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So do I.

My point though is that a creationist was included in the lot.

I don't understand the attitude some people have that it's a creationist's job to be out there doing lab or field work.

"Creationist" is not a synonym for "scientist."

No, but the majority of self-professed 'creationists' and 'creation scientists' consider themselves to Creationism to be a science and think they can do science with Creationism. You may not think Creationism is a science, and kudos for it, but the sad fact is that many creationists believe that it is - hence its inclusion.

Psychics purport to solve murders, homoeopaths purport to cure diseases, and creationists purport to advance biology. Not all psychics, homoeopaths, or creationists do these things, but some do, and the rest believe them - which is simply factually wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, but the majority of self-professed 'creationists' and 'creation scientists' consider themselves to Creationism to be a science and think they can do science with Creationism. You may not think Creationism is a science, and kudos for it, but the sad fact is that many creationists believe that it is - hence its inclusion.

Psychics purport to solve murders, homoeopaths purport to cure diseases, and creationists purport to advance biology. Not all psychics, homoeopaths, or creationists do these things, but some do, and the rest believe them - which is simply factually wrong.

Aside from the fact that I can't decipher your first sentence, are you defending the OP?

Would you be singing a different tune if he would have included a wiccan or an agnostic in it?

(Or whatever it is you are?)

 

[Theofane]

I'm definitely not aversed to giving science credit where credit is due. What I am aversed to is the glory of God being given to science.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I'm definitely not aversed to giving science credit where credit is due. What I am aversed to is the glory of God being given to science.

Me too, because science does just fine without.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm definitely not aversed to giving science credit where credit is due. What I am aversed to is the glory of God being given to science.

-- Well said!

 

[Belk]

I'm definitely not aversed to giving science credit where credit is due. What I am aversed to is the glory of God being given to science.

Since science does not address God in any way shape or form (other then to reveal the world believers think He created) I don't see how science could be given the glory that you would attribute to God.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Aside from the fact that I can't decipher your first sentence, are you defending the OP?

Yes. And the first sentence was supposed to read, "No, but the majority of self-professed 'creationists' and 'creation scientists' consider Creationism to be a science and think they can do science with Creationism.", but I added bonus words for fun.

Would you be singing a different tune if he would have included a wiccan or an agnostic in it?

(Or whatever it is you are?)

Nope. The idea behind the OP is to juxtapose scientists who actually do X, with 'supernaturalists*' who claim to, but can't, do X.

So, if it was well-known that Wiccans claimed to be able to predict the weather using magic, then juxtaposing that with actual meteorologists would indeed work. As it happens, Wiccans aren't well-known for that, but if they were, sure.

Psychics, homoeopaths, and creationists, are famous for having among their number vocal individuals who claim to do things (solve murders, explain fossil distributions), but actually can't. This is compared with scientists, who actually can do those things.

*I don't know another word for 'someone who believes in the supernatural, paranormal, spiritual, and/or occult'.

 

[AV1611VET]

Psychics, homoeopaths, and creationists, are famous for having among their number vocal individuals who claim to do things (solve murders, explain fossil distributions), but actually can't. This is compared with scientists, who actually can do those things.

Somehow I get the feeling that there are creationist-scientists who can run rings around evolutionist-scientists; and vice-versa.

The OP can take a hike ... and take his prejudice with him.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since science does not address God in any way shape or form (other then to reveal the world believers think He created) I don't see how science could be given the glory that you would attribute to God.

Then you guys do the work, and we'll handle where the glory goes -- how's that?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Somehow I get the feeling that there are creationist-scientists who can run rings around evolutionist-scientists; and vice-versa.

Sure - in their own field. A microbiologist who happened to be a creationist could run rings aroud a geologist who happened to be an evolutionist, when it comes to microbiology.

But creation scientists - that is, scientists whose field of expertise is creationism - haven't produced anything. We can look at every other legitimate field of science and see advances in knowledge and technology, but creationism hasn't. When it comes to a creation scientist and an evolution scientist presenting reason and evidence for their respective claims, the latter has won.

That's what the image says. Creation scientists claim to have evidence for their beliefs, but they don't. Creation scientists claim to do scientific research that yields empirical, extra-Biblical evidence for Noah's Flood or some such - but they don't.

Do you dispute that?

The OP can take a hike ...

Because the image disputes the validity of creationism as as science?

and take his prejudice with him.

What prejudice, exactly? Would you say he's prejudiced against homoeopaths, or simply stating the demonstrable fact that homoeopathy doesn't work?