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.
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