Friday's ChuckleADuck bookends this one.
Chuckle-A-Duck
ChuckleADuck is a webcomic that examines atheism, religion, politics, and general silliness from its own unique perspective. Its audience includes atheists, evangelicals, the spiritual, the cynical, young, old, liberals, conservatives and the occasional space alien.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
“Except when it comes to serving me the perfect steak!”
It would be cute to pair this one with the reverse – throwing the religion into the trash can.
This one is just too close to the truth to be funny. Over and over we hear about preachers saying that logic is the work of the Devil or trying to remove science from public schools and teach religion instead.
Which is kind of strange, regarding the fact that in the past, the one power actively promoting science for a long time has been… the church! (Even though popular belief today often thinks otherwise.)
And even stranger since the demented left wingers keep ignoring science whenever it contradicts THEIR religious beliefs; from biology (see GMO crops) to medicine (see anti-vaccine stuff) to more medicine (a fetus isn’t a human being that isn’t OK to kill, despite being quite able to feel pain and survive outside the womb at 25 weeks) to any and all evolutionary theories when they apply to economics (the math formulas that derive ESS don’t really change if you replace rabbits with ideas – and that concept wasn’t invented by a rabid neocon, but by Dawkins himself who originated the term meme).
…And this is in conjunction with the fact that one of the pre-election DNC conventions literally yelled “booo” for God. Yep, they Booo’ed God & have been consistently throwing logic out the window too. So what does that leave them?…Nothing at all.
…Not that Republicans are much better when it comes to common sense…
What the heck are you even talking about?
It’s funny in that “chuckle that turns into a nervous sort of laugh and then ends in a sigh” kind of way….
Faith and Science aren’t mutually exclusive. The answer to “Where does God live?” can probably be found through hyperspatial physics – it’s been postulated that there are more dimensions than we can experience with our minds and bodies (we’re capable of visualizing four – height/width/depth/time. The field equations that describe the universe don’t balance until you presume either TEN or TWENTY-SiX dimensions – which leaves either 6 or 22 that we have no direct experience of. cf: _Hyperspace_, by Michio Kaku.)
Of course, there’s always the “I refuse to prove I exist. Proof denies Faith, and without Faith I am nothing.” (cf: _That About Wraps it Up for God_ trilogy, by Oolon Colluphid.)
I’ve got the entire 5-book trilogy (that’s a long story in itself) of the Hitchhiker’s Guide, so I’m familiar with the last quote you used there…But as funny as the quote is, I think it’s way off track:
If God is nothing without Faith, then how did He exist BEFORE He created Man to grant Him their Faith?
…Not that this question ever hurt the sales figures for Oolon Colluphid’s book any…
Erm, it’s now a trilogy of SIX books – Eoin Colfer wrote _Salmon of Doubt_ under the auspices of Adams’ estate to tie up hanging details…
I have never, NEVER heard anybody on the religious side advocate throwing science away, just that it be scientific. I have seen way too many scientists or lay people throwing religion away. Why do we never hear of Dr.s Tom Hoyle or Duane Gish. Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalsim
Well said. Let science be science and abide by the scientific method. And while we’re at it, let’s call evolution what it really is: a religion.
Ugh. If you’re too dumb to understand **basic** scientific conepts, better keep your trap shut and stop proving that demented “right wing==antiscience” left wingere are actually right. Evolution is a set of mathematical formulas and concepts describing how a self-repicating mechanism evolves over time while interacting with an environment. You don’t “believe” in it or have “faith” in it. It’s a FORMULA. Like you know, laws of gravity.
I’ll tell you what, when scientists can come up with enough scientific data and consistent lab test and field study results, I’ll start calling evolution a fact. Until then it’s just a very interesting theory.
That data already exists. I suspect one difficulty is due to what one understands the words “fact” and “theory” to mean. Here’s an example on video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0FErVT8lTQ
Yes, and the understanding of the term “data” is also varied.
Greetings, Lunaroki, I have been studying the theory of Evolution for some time. It is not a Formula, like Inka believes, but only a theory. It more aptly should be named the Theory of Adaptation. I agree with your take on it.
Do you understand what a religion is? Do you understand the difference between what Christianity is and what the Theory of Evolution is? Further more, do you understand what a theory is? Yes, one can say that a theory cannot be called fact, that it cannot be held as Universal and completely known as true beyond all fathoms of a doubt. That’s because that’s how Science works. It aims to explain phenomena within reasonable standards of logic by defining its components and actions so that we might better understand what is happening around us without claiming ‘A Wizard/God did it.’
A theory does not claim to be absolute simply because the people making it do not claim to possess absolute knowledge of all things. On the other hand, a theory does not gain such a standing without having some ground to hold. It is widely accepted not because people think it sounds better, but because a significant majority of its logic can be proven in some fashion. We can prove that creatures adapt to their surroundings, and we can prove that said animals have traits that allow them to live in the environments they do, while other animals that are believed to share a common ancestor have different traits-but share some with both the ancestor and the first animal mentioned. Logically, we can prove evolution is much more likely than many other theories, and though it is not stated with absolute confirmation, this hesitance is only due to the fact that we are not omniscient, and therefore could be missing something that might change our views. We (those of us who believe in Evolution) are open to debate. If someone can bring us a more viable explanation, we welcome it. That is how Science works. We observe, define, explain, and debate until we find a suitable theory as to how a phenomena works, but we leave the door open for future generations to challenge it, in the case that a new light is shed. Furthermore, where Religion uses faith to set in stone what it cannot prove to all, science does not state anything it says is Universally applicable, and that all ideas are subject to change if evidence proves otherwise.
Now, as to religion and the difference between Evolution and Religion. First off, Evolution is a statement of a theorized (but widely accepted as most likely true due to observation and logical thinking) explanation of how we came to be-from one biological state of existence to our current, and how such may change in the future. Religion is a set of beliefs that not only work to explain how we came to be, but also generally dictates a lifestyle and cultural customs, ethics, as well as many other standards for one’s life. Evolution is a statement. Religion is a set of beliefs, statements, and customs. Seeing the difference? Evolution doesn’t tell you how to live your life, it only says that we exist as we do because our current state of being was necessary for our survival.
Secondly, religion looks to (usually) explain the more spiritual side of existence. The metaphysical. Gods and ghosts. The Afterlife. It explains things that not everyone can feel, see, taste, touch, or smell. Intangible to all but those who believe in it, as far as I understand. Science explains what can be sensed by all but those who lack the sense to do such, or what can be explained in terms that are definitive and logical by reasoning them through what we can observe and understand.
In conclusion, the Theory of Evolution is not a religion, it is not simply a belief, it is a statement of explanation that can be so far proven with logical reasoning, and is therefore held as a greater possibility than all other current explanations. When you can logically explain the Theory of Creationism through reasoning that is more sound than Evolution’s, then you can claim that Evolution is the unlikelier of the two.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rikEWuBrkHc Here is one. It is likely what the comic is based on. Also, evolution is NOT a belief. A belief would be, say, life started from nothing. It is not that it is not true or not possible, but it has not been proven scientifically. However, evolution is as much of a fact as gravity, perhaps more, because we at least understand evolution. Just because we found the Higgs does not mean we really understand it.
Nope, not what the comic is based on. However I DID do one that was based on that nonsense. This one: http://chuckleaduck.com/comic/i-dont-believe-in-reality/
Because creationism is so scientific. *rolls eyes*
And obviously you missed the the crazy person saying that things like evolution and embryology were “a lie from hell”.
I HAVE! There was a boy I knew in high school who refused to watch videos in Biology class or take certain classes because it conflicted with his religious beliefs. I understand he is now a lawyer.
The way I see it, the quest for increasing human knowledge rests on one primary maxim: We observe the universe that we live in so that we may better understand what makes it work & how it exists.
Religions started out that way…They’re an attempt to explain what’s really happening in the world & the universe, but we just don’t have the words available in our language yet. The studies of Science are just a way to more accurately observe what it is & we try to invent the words to accurately define what we see.
The Scientific Method of Inquiry consists of a self-looping procedure performed in 3 stages: Observation, Theorizing, Testing through experimentation. The religions that are based on older writings didn’t have the means for accurate & minutely detailed observation (they had to rely on our naturally-obtained physical senses), so they had no means to accurately describe what they observed. Our technologies can only extend our natural senses beyond the normal limitations, so we can more accurately describe what is actually observed.
Through all of mankind’s existence, our survival depended totally on how well we observe the environment we live in…The religious shouldn’t be throwing away the Sciences because it’s nothing more than an attempt to understand the Laws of Nature & how we fit in. Isn’t that the whole premise behind every religion?
In turn, Scientists should not abandon Faith either, because we could not survive without the curiosity it takes to explore our universe…That’s the very same curiosity is what drives scientific studies in the first place & there are still far more Laws of Nature we DON’T understand yet. The “laws of physics & science” we have now are only a very small part of the overall Laws of Nature that we’ve learned & understand.