SMBC Comics Forum

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.

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

Lethal Interjection wrote:

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.

And you lose your argument for italicizing 'nobody' and then going ahead and suggesting that there might be some in the next sentence. The rest of your argument then swirls round the bowl until it slips from all relevance.

Guest wrote:

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

I kind of feel the same way. On one hand, it can be annoying when all the technophile/nerd/rational types (if you understand the vague, broad demographic I'm referring to here) harp on the stupidity of creationists, when clearly the issue was settled, like, a hundred years ago. I mean, no one really takes that creationist stuff seriously, right? Except, there is actually a funded, motivated movement that is doing a pretty good job of subverting mainstream opinion through sophism. I don't think they actually have a chance of winning (because, they're like actually wrong) but it does sometimes seem like a hurdle we have to clear before we can do awesome stuff.

It makes me wonder if people in the antebellum north were like "Guys, yeah slavery obviously sucks but can you just shut up about it already?"

Lethal Interjection wrote:

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.

And you lose your argument for italicizing 'nobody' and then going ahead and suggesting that there might be some in the next sentence. The rest of your argument then swirls round the bowl until it slips from all relevance.

He's essentially correct, and you riposte with more hair-splitting.

Guest wrote:

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

I kind of feel the same way. On one hand, it can be annoying when all the technophile/nerd/rational types (if you understand the vague, broad demographic I'm referring to here) harp on the stupidity of creationists, when clearly the issue was settled, like, a hundred years ago. I mean, no one really takes that creationist stuff seriously, right? Except, there is actually a funded, politically motivated organization that is doing a pretty good job of subverting mainstream opinion through sophism. I don't think they actually have a chance of winning (because, they're like actually wrong) but it does sometimes seem like a hurdle we have to clear before we can do awesome stuff.

It makes me wonder if people in the antebellum north were like "Guys, yeah slavery obviously sucks but can you just shut up about it already?"

Lethal Interjection wrote:

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.

And you lose your argument for italicizing 'nobody' and then going ahead and suggesting that there might be some in the next sentence. The rest of your argument then swirls round the bowl until it slips from all relevance.

He's essentially correct, and you riposte with more hair-splitting.

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.

Guest 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, 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.

Montero wrote:

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.

Montero wrote:

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.

Surely you Guest wrote:Intelligent design isn't creationism (although they typically coexist), unless you're committing the same fallacy of conflation as in panel 7 of the awful comic in question.

I personally subscribe to spontaneous generation.

Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:

Surely you Guest wrote:....

That username is the high point of this thread.

Kimra wrote:

Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:

Surely you Guest wrote:....

That username is the high point of this thread.

Agreed.