Chick Dissection | Big Daddy

What’s so wrong about evolution? Well, you aren’t going to find any valid arguments against it here, that’s for sure. Chick is opposed to evolution, but he doesn’t seem to really put an effort into trying to disprove it. Watch the hilarity ensue as a cocky, arrogant creationist fundie student “stands up to” his grotesque caricature of a “professor” with unfounded arguments and inaccurate accounts of scientific concepts. Such is the magic of Jack Chick.

Ook ook!


My sincerest condolences to Dr. Bolton Davidheiser, Ph. D, Johns Hopkins University, for whatever childhood accident rendered him retarded enough to be cited in a Chick tract. I’m thinking it was probably something along the lines of being born into a bathtub full of bleach. Actually, I’m sure he’s a brilliant man, it’s probably just the whole ‘taking out of context’ thing that Chick tends to do a lot.

I totally dig the picture of the ape with the “Our Father” caption. The subtle hinting at the twisted concept that people are replacing ‘god’ with monkeys by believing in evolution is quite amusing.

See, here’s my take on evolution: Opponents of evolution are basically saying that white people and black people are different species, not just different subsets of the same species. (I can’t remember if it’s kingdom, phylum, class, order, genus, species or whatever else, so let’s just say ‘species’ right now. I’m sure you can figure out what I’m talking about.) If there’s no such thing as evolution, then the differences in white people, black people, asian people, etc. that make them all better suited to the climates and environments from which they all originate means that they’re all different species. I mean, they’re obviously not exactly the same, so if there’s no such thing as evolution and genetic deviation and adaptation, then they must all be different species. Personally, I believe in evolution. There’s the human race that includes all of the people in general, and then there are subsets of this human species, all of which have adapted… or ‘evolved’… to their respective environments and climates. The same applies to birds, dogs, turtles, etc. Different animals of the same classification that live in different types of environments adapt to the environments and conditions in order to survive. Birds in certain areas of the world have longer beaks than birds in other areas. This isn’t because they got down on their brittle, orange knees and prayed for longer beaks to catch bugs that reside deeper down inside of certain pieces of wood than the bugs in other areas and god said “yea, it shall be done… longer beak granted”, it’s because in order to obtain food to eat to survive, the bird just genetically adapted to do so.

(An interesting related item: My mom was dating a psychiatrist and he had this friend who was conducting research in the area of genetic sciences. Said friend has apparently discovered that DNA doesn’t just modify from generation to generation, but within the generation itself. So theoretically, I don’t have the same DNA that I had when I was born.)

Also, evolution doesn’t necessarily “go against god!”, as most of the religious fanatics think. Perhaps this is the way god wanted it to be. Maybe this is all part of some divine plan that we will be able to continuously adapt to our environments and not have to sit there and bitch and moan to god about how we need webbed feet or how we need longer arms because our backs itch. Maybe our DNA was ‘programmed’ by god to be self-adapting rather than him having to continuously fuck with it whenever some environmental factor changed.


Left Panel: “Yaaaaay evolution!” Er, no, wait. Let me redo that just to show how bizarrely enthused I, as a supporter of the theory of evolution, am whenever someone asks me if I believe in it or not. Here goes: “YAAAAAAAAY EVOLUTION!!!!11!!`!~!11!!” It’s amusing how Chick projects his own fanaticism onto people on the other side of whatever argument he’s trying to make. I think that’s one thing religious fanatics don’t understand is that not everyone on the other side of the issue feels as passionate about it as they do. Realistically, it’s more along the lines of: “Who’s against evolution?” “I AM! IT’S HORRIBLE AND AGAINST GOD! NYUUUH! GAAH!” “Who supports evolution?” “Yeah, sure. I am. Makes sense to me.”

Right Panel: Hrmmm… Chick’s a pretty decent artist, but in this panel it looks like the guy’s waving his genitals to try to persuade people not to respond to his question. “Anyone disagree?” *zzzzip* *jiggledywobble* “Eeew! No! Put that away! Jeez!”


I remember several years ago I was on this kick for this comic called “Generation X”. It was a pretty cool comic, but I sort of lost interest after a while. Anyway, they had a set of four X-Men comics as a kind of ‘setup’ to the whole ‘Generation X’ series and in it, there was this purplish chick who had this weird ‘blink’ ability and everything would kinda ‘shift’ and parts of her would disappear. Apparently, this guy’s got the same superpower, it would seem. His arm is ‘blink’ing right out of existence.

Again, the whole ‘fanaticism projection’ thing comes into play. If you can find a single professor in any college in the US who acts like this when someone says they don’t believe in evolution, I’ll buy you a Coke. I think that any professor who did act like this would probably be fired soon after. (Also, I’d really like to see a professor who hangs a picture of an ape with the caption “Our Father” on the wall behind him.) I just think the reaction is a little too extreme, here.


Left Panel:I like how he portrays the professor as a manic-depressive cuntsore. “GET THE FUCK OUT AND NEVER EVER COME BACK HERE, YOU IGNORANT FUCKWIT!! Wait, wait, wait. On second thought, stay. I’ll pick apart your beliefs.”

Oh, the poor little honest, loving, ‘turn-the-other-cheek’, wholesome student is grateful for his persecution at the hands of Professor Angry McDickbreath, Ph. D. “Thank you, sir.” There are probably, like, four people attending college in the entire United States who would react to this with a “thank you, sir”. Most of the religious extremists I’ve encountered or heard of would be up in arms threatening to call the ACLU and file a lawsuit. The whole thing’s a pretty biased portrayal of believers in ‘evolution’ and believers in ‘creationism’. “People who believe in evolution are mean and evil and bipolar and nasty and will want to persecute those kind-hearted, honest, grateful, respectful people who don’t believe in it.”

Hahaha… oh, boy. “Crazy man!” That’s the best fucking insult a room full of college kids can come up with?

The professor’s level of horrible is increased even more when he responds to the guy’s “oh, thank you for screaming at me, sir” with a “SIT DOWN!” The bias crank is turned a few more notches.

Right Panel: *Sigh* Bible-based arguments. Do you have any idea how many times the bible contradicts itself? A quick example: Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill.” | Exodus 32:27 “Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor.” So do we kill or not? People who attempt to argue with citations from the bible are morons, quite frankly. “Human and ape DNA differs by only 2%” “No! The bible says that blah blah blah blah.” The bible is basically a collection of metaphor and parable. It should, by no means, be taken in a fully literal fashion.

Do all religious fanatics think that people who are on the other side of arguable issues think anyone who believes in the bible and christianity are fanatics? I really am enjoying how this evolution-believing professor is portrayed as a persecuting, god-hating asshole.


Okay, I’m not getting this. “I could have you JAILED for saying that! (No, he can’t. It’s never been against the law to mention the bible.)” That’s just plain stupid right there. That’s just like me doing the following: Jack Chick has sex with his mother nightly.*

I can understand where this professor is coming from in his asking the student not to use bible-based arguments to attempt to counter actually proven concepts and ideas, but he doesn’t have to be portrayed as being such a prick about it. I mean, does he really need to make the professor look like that much of an asshole to try and get people to associate “evolutionism” with “dickishness”?


Left Panel: Hey, no arguments here. The theory of evolution is widely believed and pretty much proven. It’s never been proven that man evolved from ape, but it’s been proven that there are deviations (and mutations) in DNA and genetic ‘blueprints’ in every species to allow the species to adapt to its environment and conditions.

Right Panel: “Sir? My spider sense is tingling.”


Left Panel: I think “Life from rocks” is a pretty shitheaded and incorrect generalization. There’s a difference between “chains of carbon bonded together and formed life” and “life started from rocks”. “Organic” doesn’t mean “from rocks”, it means “containing carbon”, you fuckwit.

“Are there not six basic concepts of evolution?” Whuhwhuh? Four of those aren’t even concepts of evolution. This entire panel couldn’t be any more full of shit unless it was drawn with a fistful of feces. Also, would he really need to ask? I mean, the professor is writing six concepts on the board, does the student really need to inqure about it? What, does he have some kind of weird paranoia in which he doesn’t believe what his visual lobe is picking up? He needs verification?

Right Panel: How can the first five be evolutionary concepts that are “believed by faith” if they’re not even evolutionary concepts to begin with? *Sigh* No, class… no he doesn’t ‘got a point’ there. There are six basic concepts of evolution, if I recall correctly, but I’m pretty sure “big bang creates hydrogen” isn’t in there anywhere. The real six basic concepts of evolution are backed by scientific theory anyway, not just blind faith.

“I don’t like your attitude! Let’s change the subject to something else instead because if the animator actually goes into this issue, he’ll end up proving himself wrong because four of the six evolutionary concepts aren’t even evolutionary concepts to begin with!” Topic-jumping is pretty fun. “Six concepts of evolution, blah blah. I don’t like your attitude. Let’s discuss prehistoric man! Wheat bread makes the best tasting toast. I had a cut on my hand one time and I didn’t know where it came from. Does anyone have any gum?”


Oh, just noticed the ‘Satan beard’ thing the professor has going on. Another example of making the professor look like a total evil tool in order to make evolutionism look evil as well by association.


Left Panel: Nothing much to be said here. Professor looks like he’s either boring himself to sleep or fantasizing about skeletal remains, take your pick. “Ghhhuuuhhh… femur…”

Right Panel: Okay, this is what confuses me, and as I complete more and more of these Chick dissections will confuse you as well: In other Chick tracts, he says things along the lines of “it’s been proven that the world is only 6,000 years old”. So by trying to disprove a theory with a concept that he also tries to disprove (the idea that the world is, in fact, more than 6,000 years old), his argument is basically invalid and nullified. Man. Idiot.

Also, just because something was found under something 212 million years old doesn’t mean that the object itself is the same age. Jack himself tried to prove in another tract that layers of earth can be disturbed so as to make it look like something is older than it really is. (In that case, it was dinosaurs, hehehe.) It’s funny how he contradicts himself or tries to disprove concepts that he once tried to prove or neglects concepts that he previously supported from one tract to the next.

Again we have the persecution at the hands of the ‘evil’ creationist professor of the ‘superior’ student who keeps his cool and turns the other cheek. This pathetic attempt at ‘guilt by association’ is a trick Chick uses a lot.

In case you’re wondering, Dr. Hovind is a friend of Chick’s, so it’s no wonder his ‘scientific findings’ coincide with Chick’s side of the argument.


Left Panel: “Pieced together by fragmentary fossil evidence… like this chicken bone…” Blah blah blah. I grow tired of how pompous and arrogant he makes the professor out to be.

Right Panel: Hrm. Apparently, this guy came into class just looking for a fight, didn’t he? Why else would he “have in [his] possession a similar chart showing some amazing findings blah blah blah”?

They’re probably ‘rarely made public’ because they’re total bullshit.

Science doesn’t “always” have the answers. That’s part of the magic of the whole scientific process… the path to finding the answers. Every real professor knows this. I also like how Chick implies that science is against god.


“For more details, read “The Collapse of Evolution” by Scott M. Huse.” Or, better yet, don’t. You know damn well it’s going to be incredibly biased. I mean, it’s sold by Chick Publications. That’s just like me saying “here’s my argument, and here… for proof… read this other thing that I wrote over here.” Same applies to the ‘Hovind’ thing down at the bottom. Idiot.



I’d rather be ‘Cro-magnon Man’ than ‘Modern Man’ any day if we’re going by body structure alone. Why does ‘Modern Man’ have a beer gut? And why is he only wearing sunglasses? Also, any chart that cites scripture can assuredly be biased and unreliable.


Left Panel: Hah. I love how the half-assed arguments of the fundie student are “killing” the professor. Again, making the professor look like a weak meanie and the student look like a superior ‘nice guy’ is Chick’s way of attempting to get the reader to associate the sides of the argument with the traits of the types of people who back them.

The way the professor explains the system of dating is totally off. There are multitudes of tests that have to be done in order to figure out exactly when a fossil was created. It’s not just as simple as “we dig, then we say ‘okay, this is five hundred years ago so everything at this depth is five hundred years old because I said so!'”

Right Panel: *Sigh* Sure it’s circular reasoning. The way it’s really done in real life isn’t, but this fabricated Jack Chick twisted logic account of how things are done is definitely circular reasoning. I sincerely hope that nobody believes his versions of the way things supposedly happen.

The professor’s nose sure changes size and shape a lot. Just like to point that out.


Left Panel: A while back, there was a cemetery that flooded and all the bodies washed up to the surface. Coffins were floating around in peoples’ back yards, down numerous streets and various other places they normally aren’t found. Does this mean they were never buried in the first place just because of the fact that after the flood they were found scattered throughout the town? No. It just means that there are natural disasters and disturbances in the world that can cause things like that to happen and throw off the expected order of things.

I mean, when you think about it, there are dinosaur fossils found just a couple of feet below the earth’s surface. That’s not even as deep as most of the dead human bodies are buried. Does that mean the dinosaur died there less than a hundred years ago and the dirt was blown over it? No. The dinosaur died millions of years ago, just as to be expected, but environmental conditions (such as erosion, etc.) threw off the logical depth at which the fossils should’ve been found.

Also, how can we be sure this is even true? Look at the source, some evangelist site that’s most likely biased toward ‘disproving’ evolutionism. For all we know, they could’ve put the damn trees there themselves.

Right Panel: I’ll give him that one. The whole ‘gill’ thing is a total myth. I remember reading that it was a myth several years ago. But not every evolutionist supports the concept. I, for one, know that it’s a myth. Just because it was proven to be bullshit doesn’t mean evolution doesn’t exist.

And while I support the student’s statement that the “gill” thing is a myth, the source cited can’t really be trusted. Just about any source Chick gives in any of his tracts will be some biased, fundie thing that will obviously be bent in his favor.

Again, the professor is made to look like a tool. “Hate” is a pretty strong word. The professor is portrayed here as being flustered and having to resort to hatred because he’s “losing” the argument. The creationist fundie student is keeping his cool and is portrayed as ‘superior’ to the professor in that respect. You’ll notice in many a Chick tract that people on the other sides of the arguments he’s trying to make are portrayed as flustered, confused, angry, ignorant people while the ones on his side are portrayed as calm, collected, intelligent and ‘superior’. I’ll probably mention this a lot, but it’s only because it pisses me off.


Left Panel: I sure don’t see any ‘destroying’ going on. So far the student has only disproved one of the professor’s points. The “six basic concepts” thing wasn’t really a counterpoint because four of the “six concepts” Chick provides aren’t even evolutionary concepts to begin with. The student’s ‘counterpoint’ about the human skull under 212 million years of rock can be disproven by the fact that just because something is under something doesn’t mean it’s the same age as it. (Example: R Kelly. *BURN*) Also, this is the one where Chick tries to use proof that he tries to disprove in another tract, so this “point” that the student is trying to make here is therefore nullified. The chart the student provides doesn’t come from a reliable, unbiased source so this ‘counterpoint’ that the student tries to make is also packed to the brim with bullshit. Then there’s the whole ‘circular reasoning’ thing that’s only ‘circular reasoning’ because it’s inaccurately portrayed as such because of Chick’s neglect of how things actually work. The whole ‘tree’ thing doesn’t come from a reliable source either, but even then it doesn’t really matter because there are valid ways to explain how the trees could’ve ended up like that. So I’m really not seeing how the student is “destroying” the professor in any way.

Also, since when was the human tailbone considered an “organ”? I don’t think I got the memo.

Right Panel: *Sigh* Just because something has muscles attached to it doesn’t mean it’s not vestigial. Vestigial, by definition, means “Existing or persisting as a rudimentary or degenerate structure”. It by no means indicates anything about total uselessness. If you’ll take the time to research, there are a bunch of vestigial things inside of the human body. Why do you think a doctor can remove your appendix or tonsils without deadly consequence? They really don’t serve much of a purpose. I’m sure at one time they did or else we wouldn’t even have them in the first place, but they don’t really do a whole lot anymore and can be easily removed without throwing off someone’s entire system.

Looking at this panel, I can kinda imagine what this fucker’s voice sounds like: whiny, high-pitched, with a twist of arrogant sarcasm.


Left Panel: Okay, let’s take a look maybe about an inch to the left of where the focus on the pevlic bones is going on where you’ll notice the fingerlike bones in the whale’s flipper. These are vestigial bones and indicate that the whale, at one point in time, had fingerish structures and now does not. (*Psssst!* Evolution!)

While the presence of these bones doesn’t necessarily prove that the whale once walked on land, we can once again use the definition of “vestigial” to rule out the idea that muscles being attached to something makes it non-vestigial. When I move my legs around a lot, I can get rid of an erection. If I were to have my legs amputated from the knee down, I could still shake around my stumps and get rid of an erection. That doesn’t mean that I never had anything below my knees to begin with.

Right Panel: It’s panels like these that make me want to stand up, grab my monitor by the sides and shake it while screaming “SHUT THE FUCK UP! SHUT YOUR GODDAMNED IDIOT MOUTH THE FUCK UP, YOU IGNORANT FUCKWIT!” However, I don’t.

Okay, for starters, since when are pelvic bones considered “organs”? Why is he claiming that they are? Chick apparently has no concept of biology at all. Now, let’s take a look at this gem: “Even if they were “vestigial” organs, isn’t losing something the opposite of evolution?”

Okay, give me a minute, here, to hold my ass up onto my body because I’m right at the brink of having it laughed completely off. Oh, hahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA… *pant pant* GAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, man… oh… hahaha… haha… *sigh of exhausted amusement*

Alright, let’s continue. After reading that, can you even look at anything else in the tract as an attempt at a valid argument anymore? He obviously has no idea what in the hell he’s talking about… not even a vague clue. Evolution isn’t just adding body parts, it’s adapting to better survive in the environment and conditions in which an organism resides. Say at one point in time humans had webbed fingers. What, do we grow an entirely new non-webbed hand and let the other one just droop off to the side of our wrist just because “losing something is the opposite of evolution”? Evolution is both gaining and losing things to better suit conditions. Instead of growing a new hand, we’d just lose the pieces of skin between the fingers. Jesus, Jack, are you even trying to make a valid argument, here? Man. If you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about in terms of evolutionary theory… not even the slightest grasp on basic concepts… then you can’t exactly validly argue against it, can you?


Left Panel: Whoa, major topic jump there. How’d we get from vestigial organs to “what holds atoms together”? “I like baking cookies. My mom smells like flowers. I have a green pen. Resident Evil is being remade for the GameCube. I drank paint once. Bees are neat.”

Hrmmm… as far as I know, nobody’s ever seen or measured god either. So is god a “made-up dream”?

Once more, listed for the source, Jack has some biased, evangelical site that (and this is just a guess, here) will almost certainly back his side of the argument.

What the hell does any of this have to do with evolution?

After seeing how ignorant Chick is about evolution, I really don’t feel like arguing this point with my incredibly basic knowledge of simple physics. I refer you all to “A Short Physics Primer” and “The Glue that Holds the World Together”.

Personally, I believe in gluons more than I believe “Jesus pinches protons and electrons together” or “because god”.

Right Panel: *Sigh* His ignorance is totally sapping my will to go on with this. I think I’ll go cry in the shower and rinse some of the blood out of my ears and eyes before I continue.


Left Panel: Let’s just say it’s “a delicate balance” and leave it at that since any kind of real technical explanation would make Chick shit his pants.

Hrmmm… since opposite charges attract each other, what keeps the electrons from crashing down into the protons?

“If gluons aren’t the answer… what is?” What proof do you have that gluons don’t exist? That’s what I want to know. I’ll bet you wouldn’t believe it even if they were proven, just so that you could hold on to your beliefs that “Jesus holds everything together”.

Right Panel: “I don’t know.” Okay, what kind of university would hire a professor who had no grasp of simple physics? That’s what I want to know. He can’t even back up an argument with a fundie over concepts of basic physics. Chick’s version of a “professor” would never ever be hired by any respectable educational facility. This entire tract is so far-fetched it makes any attempt at an argument over an issue null and void. It’s just like someone ‘proving’ that “good will always prevail” using nothing but Star Trek references pertaining to the triumphs of Captain Picard.


Left Panel: I love how easily ‘converted’ all of the students in the classroom are. “YES! YES! READ TO US FROM THE BIBLE!” I’m picking up that Chick is implying that the creationist is the intelligent, superior beacon of light and that the evolutionists are all merely sheep with no thought processes of their own that end up following the obvious ‘leader’. “Wow! We were all so naive and didn’t have a thought in our heads about anything until you showed up!” *Sigh* I really don’t like to be called naive or even have it implied that I am. I mean, it’s not specifically pointing at me saying “you’re naive”, but since evolutionists are portrayed as naive, stupid people, it’s basically saying it in general.

I just don’t buy that everything happens “because god”. “Fire doesn’t happen because of the rapid oxidation of a given compound, it happens because god comes down and makes things burn!” I mean, sure, there has to be something that created this universe and everything therein, but did you ever stop and think that maybe it was meant to be self-sufficient? That things happen scientifically and not because god comes down for every individual instance and makes them happen? Just because something has a scientific reasoning behind it, that doesn’t mean that the scientific reasoning is wrong and that god makes every individual instance of any action from cell reproduction to atomic explosions happen with a wave of his hand. Maybe that’s how god wanted it to be… that all of these things happen on their own because of various scientific protocols set in place by said god. I swear, religious fanatics are just plain total idiots.

Right Panel: Yes, I’m sure they’ll be fully understanding of the fact that you’re quitting because of some half-assed unsubstantiated argument some fundie student put up in your classroom. Personally, ‘professor’, I think you should be fired due to your lack of ability to back up an argument with simple concepts of physics, biology and evolutionary theory.


Okay, I’d like to know how it can’t possibly be true. I haven’t seen any valid, logical arguments proving that such is the case yet in this entire tract.

Again, the whole “creationists > evolutionists” thing comes into play with the fact that the ‘weak-minded’ professor was ‘converted’ by the ‘strong-minded’ fundie student. Yeah friggin’ right.

Check out the continued theme of ‘persecution at the hands of non-creationists’. May as well depict them weilding torches and axes as well.


Left Panel: Ha! I absolutely love the logic here. “Jesus died for our sins, so therefore we did not evolve.” How does that even begin to try to make sense? “God came in human form and died for our sins, so therefore DNA never deviates or mutates in any species.” I’m trying to find some kind of logic link, but I just can’t. It’s like saying: “Jesus rose from the dead, so therefore animal sex is wrong.”

“The system…” Have a few paranoia issues, Jack? “THE BIG LIE!” What’s the big lie? Science and logical reason? Ooooh! Can’t have that!

The bible references here don’t really seem to apply to the situation in any way, especially the one down at the bottom. I’m almost certain Chick could’ve found some more relevant quotes.

Look at them all… so easily ‘converted’. It’s like none of them had ever even heard of religion before and the mere mention of it made them all drop whatever they previously believed and totally adopt whatever the guy told them.

Right Panel: “What’ll happen if I die without believing this?” Yeah. People ask those kinds of questions all the time. Not a theological discussion I have goes by without someone asking “what’ll happen if I die without believing this?” or “what should we do to go to heaven?”

Hrmmm… has anyone ever seen or measured heaven? How big is it? What’s the population? It apparently must be just a “made-up dream”.

Anyone have an aneurism yet trying to work through Chick’s twisted logic? See, he jumps around from topic to topic declaring victory in the argument but he doesn’t really resolve anything, he just makes some unsubstantiated fundie comment and moves on to something else. Such is the magic of Jack Chick. More to come, folks. This is the first in a series of many.

*Jack Chick, as far as I know, has never, EVER, had sexual intercourse with his own mother.

All images Copyright 2002 Chick Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved

41 thoughts on “Chick Dissection | Big Daddy”

  1. That commentary was a real hoot LMAO.I don’t know very much about evoloutuion.But I know Chick is a screwball.
    Thats why I liked reading this,If you really want to get your blood boiling see what he says about the Catholics


    “Big Daddy” is one of Jack Chick’s oldest tracts. Unlike many other old JTC tracts, “BD” has staying power. Why? Because it evolves! There have been four, count ’em, FOUR, incarnations of “Big Daddy,” each leap forward occurring about 5-10 years after real advances in real science turn the older versions into tribble feces.
    I saw the original Big Daddy way back in 1970 when I was a terrified-of-God-and-Hell (SOUTHERN!) Baptist minister’s son, getting my ass kicked daily by big Virginia farm boys. One of the pre-doomed missionary activities that I was guiltily performing under this rather-brutal and occasionally bloody duress was the distribution of Jack Chick tracts, including “Big Daddy.”
    The guilt I felt, in addition to the regular “Protestant Dominican” guilt of the Baptist, was the guilt I had from passing out tracts whose verity I was beginning to seriously doubt, mostly because of the wonky science of “Big Daddy.”
    Mr. Chick has a whole series of tracts on the sanctified ignorance known as “Creation Science,” which is really science the way Kool-Aid is really champagne. My stone favorite is “Big Daddy.” Second favorite is “In the Beginning” with “It’s Coming!” being a close third.
    “In the Beginning” features THE Chick Super-Christian (“Brother Bob”) witnessing to a student of Atheistic evolution. This tract features a toy dinosaur acting surprised in response to the declaration that “The Big Bang never happened.” Chick also portrays The Serpent walking upright with hands and feet. Of course, the doubting student falls to his knees in repentance for believing in Satan’s institutionalized lie of evil-ution by the end of the tract. Now he really, really believes in talking donkeys, houses catching leprosy and goats giving birth to kids with streaks because they mated while looking at streaked sticks: Really.

    “It’s Coming!” another companion tract to “Big Daddy,” proclaims that the world-wide flood of Noah caused all the fossils to be formed. This little myth is covered with the usual glorious hysteria of Chick that we all know and love. There is some truly classic Chick-ery in this one, with a man riding a triceratops and tyrannosaurus rexes being loaded onto the Ark along with turtles, mice and mountain goats. Nowadays, Creationist Cretiens draw their Noah’s Ark with long-necked apatosaurs sticking out side-by-side with the giraffes.

    But onward to “Big Daddy?” which is surely the pick of the litter in the Chick-Hovind Creationist Crusade:

    One fact that the astute reader will quickly pick up on is the composition of the characters in all of the “Big Daddy?” tracts: That never changes! As often happens with J. T. Chick’s other tracts, the un-American, traitorous professor is identifiably Jewish, the “ready to conquer America for the Reds” college students are greasy hippies (with two flashing peace symbols, a long-haired proto-lesbian and a “Negro” in a dashiki and picked-out ‘fro; somewhat anachronistic, there, Jack: There are no “De Barge” or punk rock fans at all.) Meanwhile, the “good Christian” student is another one of those Ken Doll clones with Pat Boone-type sweater and molded-on hair; blonde if I have to even say it. As others have noticed, he looks like the Hitler Youth’s poster child.

    Aryan Boy is all polite and calm while the Semite professor goes into hysterics at the drop of a hat, ultimately giving up his hard-earned tenure in an overdone plethora of sweat-drops. (For someone who loves the Jews, both Chick and his associate, Kent Hovind, sure do bash them a lot.) Very nice, for a college student’s wet dream about professorial revenge, yes: But also about as unrealistic as the rest of Chick’s fantasies.

    Poor Jack actually expects his fairy-tale conversion junk to happen in real life. He honestly believes he has all the answers that any evolutionist could possibly want. What Chick fails to comprehend is that his arguments are long outdated, long ago discredited and totally, completely WRONG!

    First of all, if anybody out there actually runs across a scientist/professor who actually goes into St. Vitus dance and sweat cascades just because someone simply mentions Creationism, e-mail the author, please: I want to audit some of this guy’s classes.

    Second of all, has anyone out there in Realityland ever attended ANY biology class that commenced with the professor asking about your personal faith in Godless Evolution? I CERTAINLY HAVE NOT! I’ve taken/slept through three (really accredited) college biology courses. Two of my Biology professors were good Baptists, one was a lapsed Catholic who believed in a more universal God: I talked to all three of them about religion: None were atheist. (Definitely not ME! I LOVE science and I am a devout Pagan!) All of them simply taught facts as they were known, including all of the many unmistakable evidences for evolution.

    Finally, as an amateur scientist, let me just say that if the only facts which science really had to offer were the “Dr. Dino” facts that the cartoon Christian in Chick’s tract has to offer, anyone with half a brain would have to toss away evolution as a silly fraud. I sure would! To the corkscrew-like minds of Christian Fundamentalists, it must truly seem that the Evolutionists are blithely, completely ignoring all of this very clear, scientifically-plausible evidence for their sacred, infallible Special Creation.

    This doctrine of the perfect Bible runs very deep in the Christian psyche; they get very upset when it is meddled with. Just witness all the good Christian Love in the classic movie “Inherit the Wind,” not to mention Little Rock around 1957! And leave us not forget (as the evangelicals conveniently have) the shameless Baptist-and-Pentecostal support for the KKK in their accursed 1920’s revival (a fact my mixed-blood family remembers all too well: It’s the reason I’m a life member of the NRA.) And leave us not forget all those cars in Protestant church parking lots around 1968 with “Wallace for President” stickers on their bumpers.

    Creationism is, and always has been, one of the major impetuses for Manifest Destiny, White Supremacy and other illusions. Us Heathen consider homo sapiens sapiens to be exactly what s/he is: A multicolored mutant primate.

    Chick, like his Creationist mentor “Dr.” Kent Hovind, lives in his own cartoon world: Something that makes his Christianity so much fun to mock, since these clowns take their own mythology entirely too seriously. In case you aren’t aware of it, it is the Chick-pickin’ Fundy who is the most likely to go into the screaming, sweat-drenched hissy-fits when his mythos is refuted, not the putatively “Jew-boy” professor.

    A number of “Anti-evolution facts” that were preached in the original BD have been discarded in favor of more modern twists. One such fact was the absolutely hilarious contention that scientists had produced a barrel of oil from ten pounds of garbage in less than an hour, thus proving that it did NOT take millennia to form oil deposits. As usual, the students in the background called out: “In less than an hour?” “Wow, we didn’t evolve!” And also, as usual, there were absolutely no scientific references to any such experiment.

    Anybody who knows anything about organic chemistry can produce the same methane that is commonly known as “swamp gas,” in just minutes in the laboratory. The actual process, out in the wild, takes much longer than just a few minutes. This “oil Creation” nonsense, which is more of the same, has long since been dropped.

    Another purely idiotic “proof” was the spotted moth in England. This was in the original BD. Basically, what happened was simple: In England, after the aerial pollutions from the Industrial Revolution had caused the trees to darken in color, a species of spotted moths were forced to turn dark themselves to avoid the birds that preyed on them. Chick has his Jew Prof declaring that this darkening “proves evolution.”

    All the Magic Christian need do is trot out the incantation “I’m sorry, sir—“and the infidel Yid whirls away in his usual sitz bath of sweaty frustration. As it turns out, this spotted moth argument wound up being one of Creationism’s most embarrassing booboos. There is a wide section in Talk Origins all about the spotted moth and its unmistakable evidences for evolution. Needless to say, Chick and his brother Creationists now treat the Spotted Moths like Chick’s Arch-enemies, the Catholics, treat pedophilic priests: By quietly ignoring the subject and hoping it will go away.

    Thirdly, there was the “Thousand-year-old snail” proof that radiocarbon dating is all false. This had to do with the “silly sign-tists” taking a sample from a fresh mollusk, then measuring it with radiocarbon dating and obtaining the result: “Dead one thousand years.” As usual, the students cried out: “A thousand years?” “Wow, we didn’t evolve.”

    For anyone with any familiarity with science whatsoever, this is pure ignorance, right up there with “If the Earth is round, why don’t we fall off?” A thousand years is a tiny click in the ages measured by the processes of radioactive decay and analysis. That’s like saying that meter-sticks don’t work and the meter is a Satanic illusion because you cannot measure 1/1000th of an inch on a meter stick.

    Let me put it to you this way: Try getting into your car and driving EXACTLY .4 miles per hour. You can’t? Aha, this is proof that speedometers don’t work! Miles per hour are an illusion! Hallelujah! NOW try going exactly 1,500 miles per hour. You can’t? There’s double proof—at least as good as anything else the “Creation Scientists” provide. Soon, we’ll be electing officials to get this devil-inspired mythology of speedometers put out of our precious, God-given automobile industry!

    Bottom line: When you want to measure .4 or 1,500 miles per hour, the conventional speedometer is not much good. But for the NORMAL operating range of 5-120 m.p.h. on the typical auto, the speedometer works just fine. And so do the modern scientific methods of radiocarbon dating.

    Most of these same nonsensical arguments are also held up as real science by a person known as “Dr.” Kent Hovind. Kent Hovind is a real Elmer Gantry type, a proven liar and swindler who frequently debates real scientists at schools and colleges. This uber-fool is well known in biological circles as being the most bull-headedly stupid Creationist (next to Mr. Not-a-Pope Chick) out there fighting to have his concatenated fairy tales taught as real science in public schools.

    Dr. Hovind also has a bogus “$250,000 reward” for any scientist who can prove evolution. He also claims that a totally “impartial” board of judges will evaluate the contributions. Hovind constantly taunts the scientific community with this as-yet unclaimed prize, loudly proclaiming that the “evil-utionists are afraid to challenge me!” (And then Dr. Hovind turns lead into sulfur trioxide and beats up the purple-striped Martian grizzly bears with his bare Christian fists, as it plainly says in The Book of Sid, verse 3:16.)

    This non-existent challenge has been repeatedly proven to be a hoax, as are the “panel of judges” and the two-hundred fifty thousand smackers Hovind lays claim to. The conditions Hovind sets are very similar to “Disprove the existence of Santa Claus.” (Watch out for those Santa-ologists: They’ve got Kirsty Alley!) His “panel of judges” is almost as believable as John “Gold-digger” Smith and his “witnesses to the Golden Plates of Mormon;” i.e. not at all.

    Hovind himself is a loudmouth bully of the type that delights in picking fights for other kids at school. As the recipient of many black eyes, school-wide nicknames and other tortures at the hands of said righteously-enraged bullies, I recognize the type very well. Every pose, every posture, every nostril-curling question of “Dr.” Hovind during one of his pseudo-scientific gabble-fests is the mirror image of such sadists.

    Hovind invariably starts off by saddling his opponents with cutesy-but-demeaning nicknames and gets his Christian listeners intoxicated with derisive laughter, one of Christianity’s favorite substitutes for dope and sex. Then, once the Moral Presumed-majority is properly sedated, Hovind goes on to crowingly declare an entire heap of his nonsensical Creationist piffle left over from the Dark Ages as proven scientific facts.

    Any scientifically-literate opponent is not able to deal with this Great Barrier Reef of mythology in any reasonable length of time. Thus, the great Dr. Hovind is able to declare yet another victory for Christ and move on to his next appearance.

    Now, here’s a SHORT list of Chick/Hovind’s individual arguments, with their answers provided by REAL scientists:

    GLUONS, NON-EXISTENCE OF: In Big Daddy, JTC has his Hitler-Youth-poster Christian absolutely HUMILIATING the spineless infidel Jew before the entire class. His list of Creationist “science facts” has floored ever argument of the professor. The Creationist has wrestled the Jew to the mat with his Biblical-based “proofs” of Creationism. Then Super-Christian springs the BIG QUESTION:

    “Sir, what is the binding force of the atom?” The evil atheistic Jew (an oxymoron?) declares “It’s gluons!” while thinking “GOTCHA!”

    Mr. Chick then has his Aryan Christian declare: “Gluons are a made-up dream. No one has seen or even measured them…they don’t exist.” (Of course, I could say “The Himalayas are just a made-up dream…they don’t exist.” I still wouldn’t try flying through them instead of over them!) Then the saintly W.A.S.P. goes on to ask how the atoms could possibly hold together: If gluons are “a made-up dream,” they should all fly apart.

    The Professor has no answer (He must have slept through “Intro to Physics” back at Harvard.) The White Christian Warrior even forces the infidel Yid to repeat himself, stuttering: “I-I don’t know—you tell me”as the inevitable Jack Chick “Diaphoresis for Jesus” sweat-drops pour down the Professor’s cowardly head. Glowing with triumph, the Christian Stormtrooper quotes Colossians 1:17. On this flimsy and theologically-incorrect basis, the blonde student proclaims: “It says that Christ, the Creator, ‘Is before all things, and by him all things consist (are held together.)'”

    Tah daaah.

    If you are really stupid enough to believe that Jesus is really, REALLY holding all the sub-atomic particles together, you’d be better off being a Hindu: Lord Ganesh has more arms and would be better at holding the atoms together-and even He would be bollixed by anything more complex than a carbon atom, since He only has six arms.

    And, after this, I wonder if “Creationist astronomers” are going to start seriously arguing that the planets move in elliptical orbits because angels are pushing them around.

    REAL ANSWER: And that, dear friends, is Jack Thomas Chick cutting a thick slice of Farmer Brown’s prime cow manure. One is mindful of the good Christian Men of Knowledge balking at accepting the “un-Christian, pagan” Democritan system of atomic structure when the atheist Humanist scientists were all worrying over the Daltonian.

    So where is the proof that Chick and Hovind are plucking clouds of non-existent pixie dust? Simple:

    Neither Jesus nor Ganesh, but gluons, real gluons, hold the atoms together. But Mr. Chick and Dr. Hovind sail right through quantum theory like Dr. Wile E. Coyote into a tunnel painted on the side of a mountain. Just because Mr. Chick and “Former Science Teacher” Hovind are too ignorant to understand the mechanics of sub-atomic forces doesn’t mean they magically stop existing, Biblical doctrine to the contrary.

    Quarks and gluons are realities, not lies and fairy tales. These sub-atomic forces are very well documented and extremely well studied: What do you think all those durn cyclotrons are for? One simple trip to the Web under “Sub-atomic Physics” would show what a load of Christo-centric crock this myth truly is. Since both of these “Profits of god(sic)” have been repeatedly advised of this, yet continue to preach their same tripe, that makes this particular chestnut into a demonstrably direct, out and out LIE!

    VESTIGIAL ORGANS: In “Big Daddy,” Jack’s Nazi Nazarene attacks the evolutionary ideas about vestigial organs. But first, let’s see a good quote which is to be found at

    “Vestigial characters The definition used in this article is a working definition. A vestigial character is a character that for all intents and purposes has no obvious or important function, yet is structurally similar to functional characters in other species (“importance” here is measured in terms of function, i.e. effects on organismal fitness). If the character appears reduced and rudimentary compared to the same structure in other organisms, and the structure has obvious important functions in the majority of other organisms, then it is considered a vestigial structure. The most rigorous test is to remove the character and observe the organism’s viability and reproductive success. If these remain unchanged, the character is definitively vestigial.”

    The professorial Hebrew points out the coccyx which is vestigial. Getting as close to angry as he ever does in the entire comic, the “Heil Jesus” Hero proclaims: “There are seven muscles attached to it—it isn’t vestigial.”

    Really? The human appendix is vestigial and it’s attached to the entire alimentary tract. Does that mean that the appendix has some secret place in “God’s Plan?” Maybe it clicks on and is “held together” when you fall on all fours and accept Jesus. Glory!



    Another Jack Chick tract trick is presented in his “descent of Man” chart. This display pretends that old evolutionists’ hoaxes, exposed long ago by SCIENTISTS, are still being taught and taken as gospel truth by modern teachers. This nonsense is repeated in the Chick wall-poster which my parents actually possess (and will not part with, though I’ve tempted them with money.) Like the Creation Science seminars of Not-even-a-Dr. Hovind, Jack Chick’s poster plays up the Christian trick of using humor to lubricate Jesus enough to make him slide down the potential convert’s gullet without a gulp (Hey! Swallowing Jesus; maybe THAT’S what the appendix is for!)

    The Born-again Christian gets a chuckle from the bulldog with the bone in its mouth. (I wondered where Fang was.) Also, there’s the scary eye peeking out of a knothole in the tree, the Neanderthal’s crutch and the scientist kneeling and smiling while he offers a skull to his god, the monkey. Is it my imagination or does the scientist also look Jewish?

    The Xtian idiots will laugh at these jokes while completely missing the fairy-tale nonsense that is preached as science by Anti-pope Chick.

    The up-from-the-monkey list starts out with Lucy, which Chick claims as being recognized as nothing more than an “ordinary chimp” by “most experts.” This is a new tidbit, plugged into the Big Daddy melee only recently. It is also one of the biggest direct LIES that Chick and Hovind both tell. In fact, a big part of their non-existent “evolution of man according to evil-ution” nonsense pivots on this non-fact, proclaimed by non-existent scientists and non-experts.

    The truth is that Lucy and her contemporaries have been proven to be the unmistakable progenitors of humankind. Consider this quote from Lenny Flank’s excellent web-site, found at

    “Nearly all authorities agree that Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) was the earliest member of the upright-walking line that led, some four millions years later, to modern humans. And, as we will now see, the ‘Lucy’ hominids shared a mixture of characteristics which puts them squarely in the gap between primates and humans.”

    The confusion of St. Jack the Clueless and Dr. Dimwit Hovind comes about thusly: There is a pygmy chimp called the “bonobo,” which comparative anatomists and microbiologists have determined are the best living prototypes for the common ancestor of humans, gorillas and chimps. Lucy was related to the bonobos, as we are, but absolutely, positively NOT a chimpanzee!

    Neither Chick nor Hovind mentions the name of one single “reputable scientist” who supports the claim that Lucy was simply a chimpanzee. The truth is that neither infallible-Pope Chick nor “Dr. Dino” Hovind understand the various interrelations of these various hominids, the same interrelations that a C-average High School football player understands with no problem.

    St. Jack’s next tells of Piltdown man, which was a fake, and Nebrasaka man, which was an error; both were quickly corrected within a very short time of the hoaxes being perpetrated. And please note: It was them Darwinist devil-worshipping Evil-ution Sign-tists who detected and exposed the frauds; not the putative “men o’God.”

    Jack’s next example is a real monkey wrench in the gonads for Christian Creationism. Heidelberg man is a perfectly good, perfectly acceptable late erectus fossil; certainly not modern human, but far more like human than any ape. This has been confirmed and re-confirmed by forensic scientists, people who make their living teaching osteopathic doctors their trade. No offense (well, some offense) to Dr. Dingo and St. Chick-en thief, but I tend to trust the word of such Sign-tists a whole bunch more than I trust a herd of credible fools who prove their Creation science by “praying about it.”

    Peking man is a real human ancestor, a very early erectus find. As Massah Mo-fo Chick-en Poopie hath done saith in his word, the original fossils were indeed lost, although excellent casts remain. Real casts made by real scientists, from which studies are STILL being done: No fakery or trickery indicated. The hilarious irony is that Chick cast aspersions on these genuine casts, then swallows without a gulp the completely FAKE Paluxy “man-tracks” which Jack’s surrogate, Bob the Mega-Christian, proclaims to show that man and dinosaur existed side by side. This hoax has been anathematized by other Creationist think-tanks (“Thou-shalt-NOT-think-tanks?”), but Chick and Hovind continue to believe and preach it.

    Next in line is “New Guinea Man”: I remember New Guinea Man in the first BD. He was in amongst the other mordant ignorance of Chick’s “Descent Of Man” fairy tale from the very first tract. One Fundy child of my acquaintance actually used this confused, unscientific list for their science project. If memory serves me right, they were laughed out of the gymnasium. Can you say “Haw Haw Haw?”

    I have looked and looked and looked for “New Guinea Man” in every evolution source I am aware of: Talk Origins, Lenny Flank, Smithsonian, Library of Congress and all the College and High School textbooks I could lay my hands on. Aside from one, count ’em ONE, obscure reference in a Creationist’s book referred to on the Web (Evan Shute, “Flaws in the Theory of Evolution”) there IS no New Guinea man! Talk about a Straw Man argument, this is it!

    The truth is that there were fragments of a human skull found in New Guinea which was carbon-dated to about 5,000 b.c.e. It was never claimed as any intermediate step of human evolution by ANY scientists in any publication. Yet Chick continues to publish “New Guinea Man,” the evolutionary step that never was.

    Next, there are the Neanderthals, which, according to Dr. Hovind and Br. Chick, was nothing more than one single skeleton of an old Frenchman who had suffered from arthritis. The average Fundy will then go “Awwww, how STUPID!” and feel immensely superior to those atheistic-humanistic Satan-inspired Evil-utionists while their Fundy Bible-based delusions are simultaneously reinforced. People pay big bucks for this garbage.

    Let’s ignore the fact that osteopathic scientists have hundreds of arthritic skeletons and can easily demonstrate the differences between a Neanderthal skeleton and a Homo sapiens skeleton. There may be examples of arthritic Neanderthal skeletons, but there are many more perfectly normal Neanderthal skeletons.

    Then let’s ignore the microbiological proofs of evolution in general and the relation of modern humankind to the Neanderthals in particular. That’s probably “all just a lie,” too.

    The major wall that the Chick-Hovind Creationist Crusade runs into head first are all the Neanderthal campsites and the graveyards attached thereunto, including early examples of the Neanderthals’ religion and reverence for the dead. If the words of Pope St. Chick are true, then at one time in history, there was an entire CULTURE of arthritic Frenchmen running around burying their dead and lighting cook fires.

    Can you rhyme that with: “Full spit?” Jack Chick certainly can and the Holy Ghost told him to call it “Big Daddy.”

    As I said before, this is a SMALL list: The Eminent Doctor Hovind has entire libraries of books, including coloring books for kiddies, starting with “A is for Adam” all proving the verity of Young Earth Creation, along with proof that the Earth is flat and square and was created at 3:30 p.m. on Sept. 20th, 6006 b.c.e. by a Three-Headed White Man. This is ignorance almost beyond belief.

    However, being an American Pagan (Wiccanish Voodruid) who was raised as a “shoutin’ Hally-luyer” Baptist by parents who I totally love and whose church was actually visited by one of Dr. Hovind’s associates, I know for a fact that people—real good, decent people—really believe this crap: Not just believe it but buy books full of it and teach it to their children as science. Hovind’s ass-ociate even sold a number of books on Creationism to the assembled Chretiens: Said books being more of the same re-rehashing of myths and misunderstood science, all preached by the Prophets Chick and Hovind for no small amount of money.

    Since neither these skollers uv Gawd nor their audience has the mental-emotional resources to find out otherwise, this entire Young Earth mythos gets told and re-told as Gospel Truth. And, sometimes, legislated into the kinds of medieval law we came to America to escape from.

    Ain’t Christianity grand? No. But Chick Tracts ARE a lot of fun!

    Big Rating for Big Daddy: D++++ for “Dummy,” “Dunce,” “Dullard” and “DUH!” as in “Praise DUH Lord!” (Also “Praise DUH Gods I’m a #^@$!ing PAGAN!”)

  3. The really sad thing is the Creationist try to make this like it is a recent battle. In fact this mess goes back to a split in the theories on the history of the earth between the Plutonists and Neptunists around the 1750’s.

    Plutonists believed that the movement of the earth was the primary shaper of the world while Neptunists believed water and in particular the Flood was the primary shapers of the world. As you have no doubt guessed they got their names from two Roman deities: Pluto who ruled the underworld and
    Neptune who ruled the seas.

    Because Plutonists believed in a uniform pattern of change they eventually became called Uniformitarians. Since Neptunists suggested that a series of small and large catastrophes had shaped the earth they became known as

    It was not until Darwin’s and Wallace’s theories came out (1859) that these groups began to call themselves Evolutionists (Uniformitarian) and Creationists (Catastrophism).

    The real reason the Creationism structure failed is not due the rise of humanism but because

    1) strict interpretations did not agree with observations based on Uniformitarianism Geology (1787),
    2) it could not explain the placement of fossils and rocks in layers (1794),
    3) got overly complicated beginning with Cuvier’s double flood theory (1813) and ended up with 6 “Gardens of Eden”,

    4) could not explain alterations of fresh and sea water animals in stata (1831), and
    5) No amount of mathematics could keep Noah’s ark from sinking even at the Genus level (c1840s).

    Please note that Darwin’s book did not come out until 1859 and by that time the Creationism structure was already pulling apart at the seams.

    One of the biggest fallacies among modern creationists is the concept that Darwin = Evolution. The reality is there were evolutional theories before Darwin. For example Regressive Evolution or fall from grace evolution can be
    found in the Bible itself (Genesis 3:14-19, Genesis 6:3, and Genesis 9:1-5)

    Natural Selection wasn’t unique either as Lamarck touched on the idea in his writings though
    Lamarck’s evolution theory was similar to the Greeks that evolution was being directed to more and more perfect forms.

    The reality is that Darwin provided a basic framework and generalized mechanism for evolution that didn’t involve really weird distortions of the law of Physics then or now. Creation require Physics to do totally nutty things that would have observable consequences – mainly about everything done since Newton going out the window.

  4. You know the part where it says that “only the last one can be calle science” when he’s talking about the “6 laws of Evolutionism”? WHAT KIND OF ARGUMENT IS THAT??? Even if they WERE all about Evolutionism, 16% is better than nothing! If you haven’t noticed, ALL OF CREATIONISM IS BELIEVED BY FAITH!!! ALL OF IT! THERE IS NO PROOF WHATSOEVER IN THE BIBLE!!!

    Also, the kid “disproves” all our methods of dating old objects, but in another comic, “The Gay Blade”, they date some ruins. HOW DO YOU THINK THEY GOT THOSE DATES??? Surely not with the methods Chick “proves” as being wrong.

    Finally, up until the last couple panels, Chick never actually proves christianity. ANY other religion that believes in a supreme being creating the universe would work. The ONLY reference to christianity is a quote from the bible. That is like me saying that the world is inhabited by wizards and proving it with a quote from Harry Potter.

  5. Wait… I just realised that “modern man thinks we came from a monkey”… as far as i know, creationists are modern men (i hope) so by definition, they are also geniuses that believe we came from monkeys”.

    Also, I’m thinking of writing my own bible… i can pretend that god talked to me and told me to write all about how people should practice religion!

  6. I love what you do man, I’m just not giving you my real address because I don’t particularly have any desire for this comment to be posted. I just wanted to let you know that the definition of an “organ” is any collection of tissues that serves a function. So your skin is an organ, your tailbone is an organ, and your hipbone is an organ. You’re absolutely right in everything else, I just think your argument would have a lot more validity if you got rid of your “organ” rant.

    (And P.S., if you’d like some more info to shoot down Chick with: Piltdown Man, which is presented in Chick’s evolution chart, was exposed as a hoax in 1953. How was it exposed as a hoax? Because people realized that it made no sense whatsoever in an evolutionary respect, so they examined it more closely and discovered the flaws in it. The exposure of Piltdown Man as a hoax does nothing but give more evidence towards evolution.)

  7. good point about him demonizing the “villain”. did you notice that the “hero” was also a little too aryan for comfort??? (heil chick!)

  8. Anybody notice how creationists find “gaps” in science: things that science doesn’t understand YET, and then attribute it to God? I bet that if we didn’t know that DNA was the hereditary material, they would attribute that to God also! I believe in God, and I believe in evolution, and I don’t think that science can answer ALL of our questions, but I’m sure that eventually most of if not all the arguments that Chick uses will be obsolete. Of course, creationists will have to look for new “gaps” in science to attribute to God, but again, these will be solved by science as well, and the cycle will keep going and going and going……….
    Also, notice how on the panel next to the vestigial-whlae-pelvis panel, the creationist kid seems to be towering over the professor. This is a cheap gimmick used to make the kid’s argument SEEM stronger, and make the professor seem to cower in the face of the “truth” of creationism

  9. Science CAN’T answer all our questions… yet. You see, science, unlike christianity, evolves. As soon as evidence disproving or proving a theory comes along, guess what, WE CHANGE IT!!!!11! Guess what? When Galileo came along, who arrested him for trying to prove a heliocentric model of our solar system? Certainly not the christians! but it was. now they accept his ideas, but only because it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Eventually, this will happen to all our questions. Evolution will be held as common knowledge, or some other theory that has more evidence. Science changes according to new observations, experiments and tests; religion does not.

  10. Grr. I know, Randy. I have Akismet installed… it’s worked fine up until this point.

    Killed all the recent spam comments. Hopefully Akismet’s databases get updated. Goddammit.

  11. At the point where the professor finally realizes that he’s wrong, the protagonist says:

    “Wrong sir! Gluons are a made-up dream. No one has ever seen or measured them… they don’t exist! It’s a desperate theory to explain away truth.”
    Now remove the word “Gluons” from that statement and replace it with “God” (they both start with “G” anyway). Instant argument against religion!

  12. Aw, I remember reading the Chick tracts when I was a little kid. Talk about a little stroll down Retarded Memory Lane! The sad thing is, we kids just ate them up, because they were basically comics. That’s at whom these are aimed, the ones least-equipped to question them logically.

  13. To Jeff
    You say that the definition of an organ is any collection of tissues that serves a function. That is an awfully simple definition, if it was true every part of the heart, lungs, and skin would be its own seperate organ. Where did you read it?
    Accordinf to “Collins English Dictionary” page 1036 an organ is “a fully differentiated and functional unit such as a kidney or a root” The tail bone is NOT differentiated, it is part of the skeleton and is therefore not an organ. What function does the tailbone perform? You made the same mistake Chick did by labeling the tailbone an “organ”. Jabberwock was right.

  14. I also like how the professor’s combover seems to be indicative of how arrogant he’s feeling at the time… maybe that’s an adaptation only present in the “pompous old man” subspecies…

  15. OMG I JUST SAW SOMETHING! If you look at the second panel, the one with all the evelution groupies or whatever, in the back the the left theres an alien thing with one eye. there’s Jack, trying to sneak in all thouse weird “jokes” again.

  16. Am I the only one who thinks that A. Ryan Fundie’s reference to “circular reasoning” is absolutely hilarious? I’ve met a couple of believers who quite quickly fell back onto circular reasoning when questioned about certain things… And I’d be willing to make a bet that Chick himself would give a similar rationale on the next two questions.

    “How do we know God exists? – Because it’s in the Bible!”

    “How do we know the Bible is true? – Because it’s God’s Word!”

    Thanks Jabberwock, these dissections are extremely entertaining! =D

  17. interesting review of this tract. in fact i have a link to a parody of this tract, “who’s your daddy” further criticizes chick.

  18. just to comment on the professor. youre right, this professor wouldnt and SHOULDNT get hired by ANY university, especially public ones. imagine paying your taxes only to discover the guy teaching your children has no clue whatsoever of what he’s talking and gets pummeled by a freakin fundie. which reminds me, what was the fundie boy doing in a evolution class anyway? was he infiltrating the heathen? and why does he have so much “knowledge” if supposedly learning nonbible stuff is against christianity

  19. oh by the way, not only is lucy a proof of human evolution which no scientist has ever disproven, but in a recent national geographic issue, it talks about a recent finding in the same area in ethiopia where lucy was found: the skeleton of a three- year old baby female, which although her upper torso and face look like an ape’s her lower body is more similar to a human’s. not only that, but this specimen (known as the dikika baby) has a bone that could be instrumental for speech. well, ill keep writing about this once i find the issue. and the professor was right. national geographic DOES know about evolution. they have been following its studies since the magazine began.

  20. Overall message: Jesus died for your sins, so you did not evolve. Even though there there is a mountain of evidence of evolution of the earth and plants, it doesn’t exist because Chick Publications is the only logical source of knowledge. Soon he will be writing a cooking book that explains that fire doesn’t kill bacteria in raw meat but Jesus does.

  21. The original version of this tract had the “descent of man” chart with art plagiarized directly from the Time-Life book _Early Man._ Even though it looks like Chick altered it slightly, probably after the receipt of a nasty cease-and-desist-or-ELSE letter from Time-Life, the resemblances are still unmistakable.

    This isn’t the only Chick Tract with plagiarized art, either.

  22. About the beer-gutted modern man on the evolutionary chart, I originally thought that that was meant to be the professor, since, like him, he wears glasses, until I noticed the professor is balding and he isn’t.

  23. Now my online studies of American fundamentalists finely have taught me something, (I have still not learned anything from reading about Arab fundamentalists). No that I learned wasn’t that scientifically skilled persons will change their believes if they face a handful of bad objections, I learned that “Wheat bread makes the best tasting toast”. Or the real reason I make a comment is that I have seen a parody of this track then the professor was a creationist and the student wasn’t, the student said the great line “If you believe god gave you a brain, use it” but now I cant find it.

  24. I was wondering where all that crazy crap that creationists were arguing with came from. The “circular logic” one had me confused for a couple days. I was like, “you know, everywhere I’ve looked, the age of rocks (and fossils) has been determined by measuring at least 3 different radioisotopes. The only way this could be ‘circular logic’ was if God changed the rate of radioactive decay just to fuck with us or scientists were really stupid.” The person I was talking with responded, “Ok, I mean, I didn’t quite get the explanation of that one, but if what you’re saying is true (which it pretty much was), then maybe that one doesn’t count anymore.”

    In essence, most of the evolution v creationism debates I’ve had have gone EXACTLY along the above lines, yep.

    PS: OK, I don’t get it, what’s all this with the gill slits? Am I missing something or did I NOT recently look at about 20 of these on slides I made from fetal mice? (By that time most of them were closer to being “a canal with attached tonsils”)

  25. I’ve never actually heard the gill-slits one before, but a similar (and seemingly factual) example of fish->human evolution is shown through our nostrils, I believe. This is all very tenuously coming from the back of my memory (my source is “The Book of General Ignorance”) so specifics may be incorrect, but:

    Evolutionists were puzzled by the fact that if humans (with one set of nostrils) evolved from aquatic creatures (with two sets of analogous gills), where did the other set go? After much fervent prayer to the Almighty Science (praise Ford), not only did they deduce that our second set of nostrils are at the back of our mouth (which allows us to breathe through said mouth), they found fossil evidence where this shift was halfway through occurring. So.. evolution.

    Groovy 😀

  26. I posted this on another tract, but it works even better here: The “Dr. Dino” he keeps citing (Kent Hovind) has been criticized by other young earth creationists.

    That’s right, Answers In Genesis doesn’t like the guy. Chick’s arguments come from a guy who that even the other young earth creationists dislike. Says a lot, doesn’t it?

  27. “The bible is basically a collection of metaphor and parable. It should, by no means, be taken in a fully literal fashion.”

    I’m glad that you said that. See, not everyone who has religion is crazy. XD I’m rather religious myself (Jewish though, not Christian), and throughout my religious education, I was never told to take the bible literally. It’s all metaphor on how to lead a good life and be a good person, basically. And though I believe in G-d, I still support evolution! They are not mutually exclusive, I promise you! Although sometimes I wish I could just put “because G-d” as answers on science tests. Maybe I should transfer to a fundie school.

    I’ve read many of your dissections, they’re great, keep up the good work. :]

  28. Page 12: Wait, what? I don’t recall reading anywhere that New Guinea Man and Cro Magnon man were “missing links” or stages of evolution of any sort. They’re both homo sapiens.

  29. Okay, why does the professor think “Gotcha!” after saying “It’s gluons!”? How did he “get” anyone by answering an irrelevant question that’s obviously leading him into another trap?

    It makes me want to adopt “Gluons, GOTCHA!” as an inane catch-phrase. (While holding up a finger in triumphant glee.)

  30. Actually, during my undergraduate, I had a biology professor who did, indeed have a faux-oil paint rendition of a gorilla in a mortarboard with the words ‘esteemed alumni’ under it. Science damn you for picking at the secretive cult of applied process and logic Mr. Chick. I’d curse you but the lack of provable and repeatable evidence of curses means I can’t. There’s some downsides to this whole faith called Science. It is a religion right? I’d feel akward if I’ve been doing it wrong all these years praying 5 times a day towards CERN.

  31. LOL – very funny! I first read that tract in 1986, when I found it lying around the sitting room of the student house I was then living in. (Probably left there by a guy I’d been arguing with about evolution a week before.) I described it then as a “muck raking pamphmet” and my opinion hasn’t much changed. I’m surprised any self-respecting Christian would still be using it – but it’s still available on Chick’s website!

    Looking at it now, I’m amused how much the professor looks like Vladimir Lenin. What’s Chick saying here? If you believe in evolution, you’re not only an idiot but you’re also a commie!

  32. I realize this is awfully old, but the tonsils and the appendix are not actually vestigial. Tonsils are the first line of defense against inhaled and ingested bacteria, but doctors were stupid for decades and were ripping them out because they hurt sometimes. They THOUGHT they were vestigial, but even when I was a kid (I’m 25 now) I was learning about how they’re part of the lymphatic system.

    The appendix stores sort of a “master copy” of all the natural flora of the gut, used in digestion, which replaces all the good bacteria lost during a stomach virus that causes excessive diarrhea or dysentery.

    Humans are evolved far enough along to contain no vestigial organs, we’re just stupid enough to think we do. The vestigial shit we do have we lose in the womb, before birth (like a full coat of fur)

  33. 1. being trace: remaining after nearly all the rest has disappeared or dwindled
    “a vestigial stirring of passion”
    2. no longer functional: having become degenerate or functionless in the course of time
    “the vestigial muscles of the ear”

    Nnnnnnno, that would seem to apply to the mentioned organs.

    Even if they weren’t, we still have plenty of vestigial pieces, like certain ear muscles, wisdom teeth, the coccyx, and the plica semilunaris.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *