Page 2 of 3

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:26 am
by gemeric
And wrote:Anti-evolution =/= Creationism? That's news to me. I thought anti-evolution was pretty much a religious stance by definition. It certainly isn't a scientific one.


There could be a non-evolution-based, non-creationism theory on life. Or many just some evolutionary agnosticism, pretentious or not.

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:27 am
by gemeric
And wrote:Anti-evolution =/= Creationism? That's news to me. I thought anti-evolution was pretty much a religious stance by definition. It certainly isn't a scientific one.


There could be a non-evolution-based, non-creationism theory on life. Or many just some evolutionary agnosticism, pretentious or not.

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:38 am
by calmcalamity
just wanted to let you all know that i saw the full comic the first time, but then when i came back it wouldn't fully load, and even though there's a new comic it still won't fully load.

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:11 am
by stairs?
ThatThereLazyGuy wrote:
ChaoticBrain wrote:http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2703#comic

I really enjoyed this one. Zach's analogy to illustrate the circular logic of the Creationist belief system is dead-on, and the twist punchline was well-executed. This is the hardest I've laughed at SMBC in a long while.


Actually, an interesting point was brought up elsewhere, but I'll point it out here:

Anti-evolution =/= creationism.

Also:

JOY. Another anti-religious comic. Honestly, evolution has been pretty well proven, but this stuff is just... annoying.

Don't be stupid on purpose.

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:02 am
by Guest
And wrote:Anti-evolution =/= Creationism? That's news to me. I thought anti-evolution was pretty much a religious stance by definition. It certainly isn't a scientific one.

Well, for starters, religious stances aren't necessarily creationism, creationism isn't necessarily religious, unscientific stances aren't necessarily religious, and religious stances aren't necessarily in conflict with science (which is not to say they are scientific, but if the Pope says that life can exist on other planets that doesn't make scientific reasons to believe life might exist on other planets unscientific). Any and all of these can be applied to anti-evolution =/= creationism, but my favourite is simply that the theory of evolution is not in any way incompatible with a young earth, it describes a process of speciation which is more or less common sense and it doesn't really matter to the validity of the theory how long it's had to operate.

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:37 am
by LLama
It didn't load properly for me at first, either.
Today, I cleared my cache, reopened my browser, and it loaded ok.

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:59 am
by Kimra
Consider yourselves all fixed. Because man you all repeated yourselves far too many times to be amusing.

If I deleted anything important and poignant? Colour me surprised and also: I don't care.
Cheers!

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:55 am
by Kaharz
Haven't had any problem with the comic loading in firefox. I'd copy and post it, but I'm too lazy.

As far as anti-evolution not equaling creationism... yes, that is true, but for the most part the only two theories that have any major support are evolution and creationism. It is rather nit-picky to hammer on the point that there are anti-evolution theories that are not creationism. As far as 'young earth' theories, the vast majority of the observable evidence indicates that young earth theories are wrong. Young earth theories are also often associated with creationism.

I enjoyed the comic somewhat. If it wasn't for the punchline at the end it would have been a pretty boring and trite comic though.

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:41 am
by Montero
KKoro wrote:
And wrote:Anti-evolution =/= Creationism? That's news to me. I thought anti-evolution was pretty much a religious stance by definition. It certainly isn't a scientific one.

Well, you could have someone who is some form of existentialist and simply doesn't believe that the material world is real, you could have an extreme skeptic with a similar viewpoint (which could count as extremely paranoid science), or you could have someone who believes in Intelligent Design. Like the Catholic Church, for example.

ALTERNATE REPLY
You could have an extreme skeptic, or a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design.

It is often simpler than this. Many people don't believe in evolution in the same way they don't believe in electrolysis, in neurochemistry o in quantum physics. They don't know much about these things, or don't find them relevant to their life, so they simply keep themself agnostic about them. Without malice or ideology, just because they lack of a true reliance on science.

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:08 pm
by And
Guys. You're splitting hairs.

Nobody rejects evolution because of non-religious or existentialist or agnosticism about biological processes. There is no mainstream (or even, substantial non-mainstream) dissent about this. You can argue all you want, but meanwhile, in the real world, the only ones making an effort to reject evolution are the creationists, and this is ALWAYS a religious argument (Catholic, Young Earth or whatever: still religious and still creationist). So the criticism from Zach's comic very much applies.

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:17 pm
by =8)-DX
You could have an extreme skeptic, or a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design


Actually ID *is* creationism (not YEC, but it's identical to OEC), admittedly, but it's essentially just as religion-based and non-scientific. Go read about "of Pandas and people".

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:41 pm
by Montero
And wrote:Guys. You're splitting hairs.

Nobody rejects evolution because of non-religious or existentialist or agnosticism about biological processes. There is no mainstream (or even, substantial non-mainstream) dissent about this. You can argue all you want, but meanwhile, in the real world, the only ones making an effort to reject evolution are the creationists, and this is ALWAYS a religious argument (Catholic, Young Earth or whatever: still religious and still creationist). So the criticism from Zach's comic very much applies.

You are almost right, but bear with me here.

Suppose you ask some non-american, typical person "do you believe in evolution?"
Where I live, we may as well ask if he believe in some obscure esotherical doctrine, or in mercantilism, or in whatever. He legitimately don't know exactly what we are talking about: he don't know and even if, he wouldn't care.
Suppose we are dick and take that conversation further:
"So, do you believe in evolution?"
"Uh? What is evolution?"
"Long story short, a theory about how life forms change over time"
"How much time?"
"Say, million years"
"Man, I wasn't here million years ago. Afraid can't help."

To be fair, this qualifies as agnosticism, that's all.

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:50 pm
by nobody
Surely you could use some kind of analogy using pizza or something

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:40 pm
by And
Montero: I'd say that qualifies as ignorance rather than agnosticism.

I don't consider my grandmother "agnostic" about computers, even though she doesn't understand how they work and doesn't care. She isn't part of any organized group which loudly rejects the "theory of computers", either.

Re: [2012-Aug-14] Theory of Revolution

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:59 pm
by smiley_cow
And wrote:Guys. You're splitting hairs.

Nobody rejects evolution because of non-religious or existentialist or agnosticism about biological processes. There is no mainstream (or even, substantial non-mainstream) dissent about this. You can argue all you want, but meanwhile, in the real world, the only ones making an effort to reject evolution are the creationists, and this is ALWAYS a religious argument (Catholic, Young Earth or whatever: still religious and still creationist). So the criticism from Zach's comic very much applies.


Actually the Catholic Church subscribes to Theistic Evolution* and they officially stand that scientific theories/discoveries regarding evolution are not in conflict with the church teachings. Since we're all splitting hairs here.

*Basically science is right, but there's still a God. And since they don't consider themselves a scientific theory but rather a philosophical way of reconciling religion and science, I'm not particularly bothered by it.