“Do you take these eyes to be your lawfully wedded gravatar?” was my immediate reaction to your post. Not sure if it was intentional, but good job sir.
I like how they keep expanding from panel to panel, until in the final panel where they’re the same size as those of Haruhi Fujioka’s from Ouran Host Club 😀
A couple of times I think… also depends on if you watch the anime or read the manga (I did both, the manga is better imo… they’re the same for 90%, but ending is completely different).
She’s crying because her previously unquestioned core beliefs have had the brutal excavation pick of justice wedged between them and the surrounding geological strata of her mind.
The problem is most creationists vs. evolutionists debates are taken as science vs faith.
Science is a PROCESS
Observe
Theorize
Devise
Test
Repeat
Technology is the application of science based theory/calculation outside the realm of the mostly natural.
Evolution is a theory based on some of the available factual information with a huge number of assumptions ignoring theological history.
Creationism is a theory based on some of the available factual information and recorded theological history.
Evolutionists and Creationists just have faith in their own theory.
Unfortunately both sides have uneducated followers, like Joyce.
Then there are the radical evolutionists and creationists who hold tight to their own faith while learning all of the opposing faith’s theories.
Last thought. Whether you believe in random amino acids joining or Adam and Eve. We all have a single point in our genealogical origin.
I hate when religious people claim that people who believe in evolution have “faith” in it. By definition, faith is the belief in something intangible that you don’t have evidence for, you just trust in it. When a person believes in evolution, it’s not faith; it’s based on facts and science and observation. It’s not the same. If you value the concept of faith, then what I’m saying shouldn’t lessen its validity to you, but we do believe in things in fundamentally different ways.
Dawkins defines faith as belief withOUT evidence.
Sort of like the Axioms of science: belief that something is true without evidence to support it.
You have faith that everything the scientists tell you is true. Have you ever actually held the bones of Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”) in your hands? Or tested the carbon date yourself? No, you have faith in the scientists who tell you what to believe.
“Evolution is a theory based on some of the available factual information with a huge number of assumptions ignoring theological history.
Creationism is a theory based on some of the available factual information and recorded theological history.”
I…’ve got three problems with that statement, actually.
First is that evolution, that which this word actually comprises, is based on all factual information currently available and has only very few assumptions left. Though the latter cannot be said about many theories derived from (but not being part of) it.
Second is that creationism usually* ignores some to all (depending on what version you’re looking at, there are a lot, quite different ones) factual information currently available.
*I want to point out here that there is in fact at least one version of creationism that accepts evolution and merely states that God created Earth and the first life and that he’s the leading force behind evolution.
Third is calling the contents of the bible “theological history” which is an entirely wrong term to use here. Theological history would for example be a list of all popes and antipopes in chronological order. The contents of the bible however would rather be called religious scripture.
“Evolutionists”. No. There are no evolutionists, because we do not subscribe to a belief or theory — we subscribe to objective reality, and if evolution is ever disproven (there’s a prize of quite a lot of money actually just sitting there, waiting to be claimed by anyone who can!), then scientists will discard it.
And science would be REALLY EXCITED TO DO THAT. New information is something it thrives on. Every scientist out there would love to be the person who discovers information huge and mindblowing enough to overturn evolution.
It won’t happen, because evolution is incredibly incredibly factual. But the scientific community that you imagine as worshipping Darwin would love the chance to throw him under a bus for the next big advance. It’s just NOT faith, and there are NO “evolutionists”. To be so wedded to any one explanation is to be a BAD scientist.
(Further note: even if evolution were at this point somehow fundamentally disproven, it would probably still be no more “wrong” than Newtonian physics. The best way to think of scientific progress is to imagine a very grainy, blurry photo seen up close. We see it as green and analyze the shapes and theorize it might be vegetation; then someone like Einstein comes along and puts the photo into focus, zooming out a bit more, and we see that what we thought was just grass is clearly a forest. It being a forest doesn’t mean the green we saw wasn’t vegetation, just that “vegetation” wasn’t the whole story. This misconception — that science is being constantly thrown into the trash as nonsense, so why bother understanding the latest fads?! — is another fundamental misunderstanding that lots of people use as an excuse to discredit it, so mentioning it seemed appropriate here.)
Ah yes, German, it’s compound word structure allows us to make up silly things like “Herzkreislaufwiederbelebung” in place of “C.P.R.” or “Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung” instead of “Speed limit”. “Rindfleischetikettierungs überwachungsaufgaben übertragungsgesetz” is just overdoing it for it to look like a really serious language, just a bit.
Some people wonder why I took Latin instead of German despite the fact that I’m a quarter German on my father’s side. This is that reason; if you can pronounce those, please do so over the sink so you don’t splatter drool over the rest of us.
I can pronounce those just fine without even the littlest of spitting drool. But then I’m from the German speaking part of Switzerland which gives me somewhat of an advantage in that department. 😉
But there is a reason as to why there’s an annual selection of an Unwort (non-word, or something similar) of the year. Choosing the worst concoction that media, politicians or simply society has come up with the previous year.
Of course there’s some irony in that Unwort is an Unwort itself. 😀
Because nobody fucking knew it was a word until just now?
Don’t question the word usage… just goooooo with the floooowww. Get loosey-goosey, baby. Roll with it, roll with it. Just get around to Happytown. Okay I no longer know what I am saying.
Yeah, the joke of “I only read it for the articles” is… well, something. But, seriously, Playboy DOES have legitimately good writing, articles, stories, etc. It does sometimes get to a point where you’ll be reading something engrossing and then be all like “Oh, right, there’s naked lady pictures on the next page. I forgot this magazine had those.”
Exactly! In my day, the needles were two yards long and five inches thick! They used a hammer to ram it into your skin and then funneled the vaccine inside ya. An’ the damn stuff didn’t work half the time! They’d drained it from an infected corpse and you just had to hope there was still some bugs in it, or else you were just getting’ rancid corpse water poured into the big-ass hole they’d made in ya, And we liked it! Hell, we loved it!
You had needles? In my day they would take the dead infected corpse and make you walk around with it roped to your body for a week. Body parts would fall off but you’d have to gather them up and tie them on too. But it was ok ’cause for most of us this was the only friend we ever had.
You had a rope? LUXURY! In my day, we had to take our corpses and have nalied to us through our back. I had to share 2 corpses and half a nail with my six brothers and you had to lift t’entire thing with your back, the way a proper labourer does it. And walk uphill twice a day in the snow.
Course, you try telling the youth of today and they don’t believe you.
O’course, I were too weak to infect myself on account of my crippling miner’s tongue, a common infection among the 12-and-unders. So I had to ingest me own brother after he’d evolved into the flu, then get tried for murder.
I’m fairly sure that I don’t have a local exorcist, but I’ll check…
No, I don’t. Not even close. There are many helpful guides online that tell me how to conduct my own exorcism, though, including this informative wikihow article. I particularly like the bit about how I can give a demon a ‘legal right’ to enter me if I use horoscopes.
I can categorically state that your local Catholic priest is either capable of performing an exorcism himself, or can get hold of someone who can, if you should have an occasion to ask. So you probably do, at that.
Even so though, it would surely depend on the local laws of your area. So contact your lawyer and ask him to clarify what the applicable statutes there are that have been passed that permit demonic possession, because really, this is the sort of thing you don’t want until you’re in court to find out.
I don’t think we should be with Sarah, she’s being a B-word. Joyce is being mocked for her beliefs, beliefs which she goes out of her way not to impress on others. Her not believing in evolution is a little misguided, but it’s still her choice, and Dina and Sarah are both being incredibly rude.
Joyce struggles with the way she believes other people should behave and the way they actually do, but she works really hard to give people leeway and let them make what she believes to be a mistake. Sometimes she oversteps her boundaries and when that happens she is informed so, but for the most part Joyce is the most accepting and flexible charater in the comic. And just because Dina doesn’t think she’s being rude doesn’t mean she isn’t being rude.
Still haven’t heard a single convincing argument as to how Dina was being rude in the previous two comics. She calmly and without any insult pointed out what she perceived as a clear flaw in Joyce’s logic and that’s it.
… why *IS* Sarah being a bongo right now anyway? I mean, she explains herself, but this does seem like actual bongo behavior that I can’t recall seeing from her before. Before, she was just grumpy and standoffish, but this is rather punch-in-the-face-able. Or, at the very least, different than what I’ve observed before. I dunno, haven’t seen her much lately so perhaps I’m just forgetting some bit of characterization.
Perhaps that’s where the disconnect is. I don’t particularly care about Joyce’s beliefs or feel any animosity about her having them. Mostly pity and just sorta shaking my head. Bemusement at most. Also, I’m attracted to her while Sarah isn’t (yet). Therefore, even after the last few strips, I don’t feel angry at Joyce, wish her to be put in her place because she doesn’t really bother me, and don’t see any desire to see her get her comeuppence. The only time I really felt that was when she hired Mike to hit Joe and didn’t see anything wrong with that (she shoulda gotten a number of smacks equal to the number she approved for Joe to receive).
This situation about her beliefs? Small potatoes. Not something that gets me riled up. So laughing at her misery here (especially with dem eyes!) just seems excessive to me. At least Sarah acknowledges that her behavior IS pretty bongo-tastic, so it’s at least pointed out.
I get what you’re saying. I mean…Joyce can be kind of obnoxious with her beliefs and I probably only don’t pity her because A. This seems very small and B. It DOES oppose my opinion. I dunno. Maybe I’m a d-word.
It’s not about her being put in her place, it’s about the absurdity of the situation she’s created for herself. Sarah’s not laughing at her because she doesn’t believe in evolution, she’s laughing because she doesn’t believe in evolution but is now blubbering over something she chose to do based on something she doesn’t believe in.
OK, I understand a bit more now. Thank you. I understand better now–I just don’t think it’s very funny. But, meh, not everyone’s gonna think every situation is funny, so no big. And Sarah recognizes that the joy she’s taking is particularly bongoy. So it just makes me go :/, but I see where she (and everyone else) is coming from. Thanks for the input!
Here’s why it’s funny to me: who told her to get a flu shot every year? Who explained the reason she trotted out? Knowing Joyce, I’m thinking authority figure: parent, preacher, whatever.
Now, she doesn’t appear to question where that reason comes from, or how the reason figures into a broader overview of thought. She listens because someone else told her to.
I have to agree that I think they are being “bongoy” toward Joyce. After all the complaints about fundamentalists being “pushy” in their beliefs, I find a lot of intolerance toward letting Joyce believe what she wants. Sure, I’m sure people will talk about how obviously wrong her beliefs are, but those are _your_ reasons for why you believe the way you do, not _hers_.
If I tell you that aerodynamics isn’t a thing and that planes fly because God wants people to be closer to him, you’d be right to call me a moron. Now picture being told repeatedly that my opinion deserves respect, that it should be taught in schools, and that modern physics is a pack of lies that all true believers should ignore in favor of Intelligent Lifting and you’ll have an idea of why people hate Joyce.
HAS Joyce being doing all of what you said? I can’t recall her saying that what she believes should be taught in schools. She may *think* it, but I don’t think she’s been going around telling that to every one of her friends. She’s just been pointing out what she’s been taught in HER school(home). I don’t think she’s as guilty of doing all the things you’re saying to imagine her do. The majority of the time, she’s innocently ignorant rather than pushy. At most, she’s enthusiastic about getting people to enjoy the things she does/believe if it’s asked, like taking Dorothy to a church gathering (I can only think of it as Mass since I was raised Catholic, but I know not every denomination calls it that–if any).
I think sometimes people think worse of Joyce than she really is. I mean, if you can point out specific examples of her doing what you’re saying she’s doing, please do link them. I’m not asking as a way to refute you–if I’m wrong, I’d like to see the strips. The archive is vast so if she has done everything like that then I’m probably just forgetting. Keeping track of all this is difficult sometimes.
Joyce’s beliefs only exist because she was hidden away from reality and the objective truth about reality. ONLY. Were she not deliberately indoctrinated and brainwashed, she might easily still be a christian, but she wouldn’t be flaunting laughable ignorance about science and biology and history every third time she opened her mouth.
And that’s what it is: laughable. She believes idiotic pseudoscience but still has herself be stabbed by Science! because she doesn’t manage to activate enough brain cells to realize that her actions make no sense.
It’s like the cognitive and intellectual version of the three stooges. Laughing is a perfectly reasonable response, particularly if you’re a b-word and all.
And screw evolution denial. It’s annoying when ignorant people think everyone else is wrong. Someone’s bad education doesn’t excuse spreading false beliefs about scientific things.
I think it’s simply a result of some of Joyce’s more annoying traits (everyone has some and with her they tend to come up rather often) constantly grating on her (roommate, don’t forget!) and that pent-up frustration finally finding a release here.
But flu shots don’t hurt? I am terrified of blood draws and tetanus boosters suck, but flu shots don’t even register because the needle is so tiny it’s barely even cold.
For some reason, I swear flu shots hurt more than others. Not the needle itself, but the injection just seems to be painful for a while. I’m not sure if it’s an immune thing, or just psychosomatic.
I concur, but some folks are freaked about needles. I got allergy shots until I was 18, you get over them quickly. My brother’s been known to comment that the best part about donating blood at college is looking over and seeing a football player next to you sweating bullets.
I am freaked out about needles that I can’t see being poked into me. I have to observe the steel sliding into my flesh to be easy about it. The spinal tap I had thirty years ago was a nightmare.
On the bright side, I had a nice ‘rain ache’ just above my butt for a while.
I’m literally the opposite. The very first time I had to go get a needle in school, I overheard someone say it doesn’t hurt if you don’t look, so I just don’t look and then I never notice it.
Absolutely. Flu shots are nothing, but tetnus shots hurt like a frickin’ mother…
Of course, given that I donate blood and platelets on a regular basis, it’s entirely possible that I’ve just dulled that effect through endless repetition.
There, there, Joyce. Just put some ice on it and take a bit of Advil if you feel feverish. You’ll be fine.
And, as far as having your mental horizons expanded, it only hurts the first time.
I was actually told the opposite about needles and repetition. Some 5 years ago I got ill and as I had been in Latin America and the doctors weren’t sure what it was, they made me do a lot of blood tests during 2 weeks and when I commented to the nurse that it was like it got a little worse every time, she said that yes, in fact it tended to be so for most people.
So I guess you’re one of the lucky ones!
Though that might simply have been because you got stung so often over a very short period of time. Probably every time in the same place or at least area. Temporarily making you a bit oversensitive.
As for me, I do feel the needles. And I can tell for sure since I’m absolutely horrified by seeing a needle deeply penetrate my skin and therefore always look the opposite way.
It is however only a very slight sting, hardly worth calling pain at all. The vaccine on the other hand can hurt. Though for me it’s usually a dull ache, similar to sore muscles. Very annoying but not really bad unless you press on it forcefully or try to exert the muscle in question.
Ah, don’t you remember the fanservice episode where Joyce was decrying the use of fanservice in webcomics and the Sara “lost” her towel after stepping out of the shower? Mind, we didn’t see much but at least we got sexy back.
Yup! Heck, the first time we meet him on der Kestle, he hasn’t got it on yet.
And yes. Othar’s, definitely. The moreso in the Weasel Queen arc, IMO, because the first time we see him it’s just some guy, but in the Weasel Queen, it’s Othar.
If it’s the fourth one, she could be called a L-word possibly. Has to how much Joyce could handle that, I do not know, since I’m still trying to process how she’s handling Ethan…
Granted, if not an L-word, I still wonder how Joyce would then view such an act.
It’s late, so I’m going to go over to the corner now, and ponder what happens when one says Candle-Jack on this
So, are we just talking about the science of flu shots that Joyce doesn’t believe in? Or is this comic trying to make the assertion that Christians can’t possibly believe anything that comes from science? I’m sure there are some hardcore Christians who shun all things science, but they would be far from the majority.
On the contrary, science can make God’s creation that much more awesome as we begin to see how the world (and the universe) work in all their complexities.
Of course, I’m sure now a bunch of people are going to toss various branches of science at me that seemingly can’t coexist with a belief in God. Have fun with that… Just now that I won’t be responding not because you have shaken my faith, but rather because I know that nothing I can say will shake yours. =P
And if you’re too lazy to click ‘back’, Joyce explicitly rejects evolution. Flu shots are only necessary because of evolution. It’s like not believing in snow and then buying a sled.
No, it’s a pretty ridiculous stretch to claim regular flu shots are scientifically based on evolution. Innoculation predates Darwin. You don’t need evolution to explain the continuous appearance of new virus strains and accept modern medicine against them.
And anyway, the Writer glossed over this because it would have made Kicking the Creationist a little bit harder and softened the joke, but Christian Science (shudder, I know) doesn’t really oppose the principles of adaptation that lead to evolution. It’s just that there’s not enough time for anything to evolve into anything else because the earth is only 6000 years old.
The claim that the earth is only 6k years old is absurd on it’s face (tree rings date the oldest trees at 10k or 15k or so, to say nothing of ice cores, geologic layering, and radiometric dating, not to mention the fact that fossilization is an exceptionally slow process yet we find fossils freaking everywhere) But there -are- plenty of people who claim that the adaptation involved in the flu shot and the adaptation involved in “macroevolution” are wholly different things, and that the latter is impossible regardless of the time involved. Joyce, clearly, from the previous conversation, had never thought to connect the two. Thereby it was a devastating blow to her deliberate ignorance.
Christian Science may (or may not) oppose it, but Joyce science does. This comic is not about the abstract christian, it’s about this specific christian. Sure, she happens to share views with 46% of Americans (most of those being some sort of christian), but this is not a specific commentary about the specific tweaks of this sect or that sect, unless you’re talking about Joyce’s sect.
“It’s pretty ridiculous to claim that flu shots are based on evolution, because innoculation predates Darwin.”
A few problems.
1) Darwin did not *invent* evolution. He wasn’t even the first person to notice its effects. As such, evolution is perfectly capable of having impacted things that existed before Darwin. I mean, this logic is so absurd that I assume it isn’t really what you meant to say.
2) The history of ANNUAL vaccinations and the idea that one shot didn’t render you immune forever does not go back nearly as far as the history of vaccinations themselves.
3) People used to explain how medicine worked and why in very different terms, but that doesn’t mean anyone should claim illness is caused by your humors being out of balance and expect to be taken seriously. Yes, that was once a theory; and yes, in the most ABSTRACT sense, it is still correct (just like the early idea of a perfectly spherical Earth is ABSTRACTLY correct), because science is rarely a process of disregarding ideas completely and more often a process of fine-tuning ideas with new information; but that absolutely does not mean that it’s perfectly valid to only accept the “humors” theory of biology. If you do that, you are being ignorant, and people will call you out on that.
TL;DR: Yes, evolution IS at work here, and has been since forever. That people didn’t know what to call the process doesn’t mean it wasn’t ALWAYS at work, and certainly can’t be used to provide an acceptable excuse for Christians or any other evolution denier to claim it ISN’T at work.
That’s like saying lightning has only been electricity since Benjamin Franklin flew a kite or that gravity has only existed since Newton saw and apple drop. Darwin didn’t wave his fingers and make evolution, he just saw it happening.
Joyce is one of those hardcore Christians who shuns all things science. If you look real carefully at certain strips, this becomes evident. It’s easy to miss, though.
It only asserts that Joyce cannot reconcile science with her faith, not that nobody can. Also, most of the time Joyce has the luxury of being able to ignore the implications of rejecting proven science, up till the flu shot.
“Just now that I won’t be responding not because you have shaken my faith, but rather because I know that nothing I can say will shake yours. =P”
Look up the word “faith”, and stop being a dick. As fun as trolling the rational may be, believing in thing that have been proven true by mountains of evidence is not “faith”. Not all beliefs are baseless. Just yours.
(And as for things not coexisting with God, it would depend on what God you’re talking about. Deist? Christian? Flat-earth christian? Precognitive? So many possibilities, no consistent properties, not consistent answers. So no disproofs for you.)
What he’s saying is that science and believing in God do not simply work, they work amazingly well. And that he won’t be answering to people trying to convince him that you cannot accept evolution and still believe in God. Or the world not being flat and still believe in God. Or whatever.
And you say that his believe that science and faith work perfectly together is absolutely baseless.
The day is over and nobody will read this, but for all his vaunted claims that science totally never disagrees with God, he immediately turned around and leapt to the defensive. He refuses to listen to counterarguments, because of course none of our arguments will be any good anyway.
Translation: “I know I’m full of shit, but I don’t intend to listen to you telling me so.”
And then he dropped the bomb: he called acceptance of science faith.
This is a standard false equivalence that bullshit peddlers do: they try to pretend that nobody else’s claims are any better than their flimsy codswallop. By lowering facts down to the level of mythology, they hope to persuade people that their mythology has equal credibility and deserves equal respect. When, of course, it doesn’t.
There is of course a chance that he has swallowed the notion that religions are as credible as science, and that he isn’t deliberately trying to be insulting and provoke an angry response from people who don’t like being compared to bullshit pedders. And then you reread that last paragraph of his, and it becomes clear that regardless of his beliefs, his tone is no accident.
“So, are we just talking about the science of flu shots that Joyce doesn’t believe in? Or is this comic trying to make the assertion that Christians can’t possibly believe anything that comes from science? I’m sure there are some hardcore Christians who shun all things science, but they would be far from the majority.”
Viruses are generally accepted as evolving and that evolution is considered a specific example of more general Darwinian evolution.
However, to many in the public, “evolution” means “evolution of man” and Joyce specially states they “adapt”, which in the case is a form of evolution and her comment how that is different than becoming a pig implies that her intent is to differentiation viral evolution from the origin of higher mammals.
So, absent just assuming the worst about Joyce, all you can really say about her is that she is saying that the evolution of virus doesn’t mean she has to believe that human were formed by evolution. While I’m sure many will call that absurd, it is a position that I’ve heard well informed people defend.
I’m a scientist who believes in evolution, but respects his relatives who don’t, and who is tired of the “total war” attitude of some on “both sides”. You point was, claims to the contrary, IMO, not withstanding cogent.
I like how you can assert that you’re not going to even deign to respond to anything that anyone else says, but somehow it’s everyone who doesn’t agree with you that’s closed-minded.
And by “like” I mean “weep bitter tears of despair at the state of public discourse”.
Statistically speaking, yes. But not in an absolute way. So, if you don’t take a flu shot but you cut your physical human interactions to near zero, (never touching people, avoiding elevators and public transit, putting gloves when you go to the grocery or touch any public surface, etc etc.) during the flu season, then you’re not putting other people at risk, in a statistical sense.
At the same time, though, there are other vaccinations that are going to work far better if they’re widespread, such as measles, pertussis, polio…all the really, really nasty viruses that you don’t wanna contract EVER.
Me, I just tend to believe in supporting the whole herd immunity thing, but I’m also a nursing student, so…
You’d need to either be Chuck Noland or wear some sort of quarantine suit 24/7 with nobody handling your old oxygen tanks EVER and going in to that environment AFTER completely killing any and all bacteria and viruses etc in your system (probably by radiation) in order to never infect anyone ever.
TBH, I don’t remember what the “a” stands for. I remember eyeballing it skeptically in my younger days, and I think it doesn’t help that there is also an element NAMED LINK, which is used for something completely irrelevant. 😉
Love it. I have never seen Sarah so tickled. Gotta feel for Joyce with those huge sad eyes, I’m not made out of stone. But, I have to side with Sarah’s logic. It’s funny.
I’m experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance over free flu shots for healthy students and everything that I thought I knew about American health care…
Big colleges have a vested interest in not having half their student body miss class due to a flu epidemic. They practically have to beg students to get off their asses and go to the clinic.
Those colleges probably pay for it out of pocket, though.
I think I’m missing something… how is this caused by cognitive dissonance? She only has one belief, that evolution doesn’t exist. Her getting a shot doesn’t really have to do with a subconsciously hidden belief in evolution, just acknowledgement that there are different types of flu and the shot she got last year isn’t for the same flu she got a shot for this year. I’ve gone over my own disbelief in evolution, but I’m still perfectly comfortable making a distinction between a Pug and a Retriever.
Because the shot isn’t just against a different type of flu, it’s against a NEW type of flu. That has evolved. Because viruses do that.
Joyce taking regular flu shots despite not believing in evolution is like someone protecting their seaside property against the tides despite not believing in the gravitational pull of the moon.
Ah, aha. Had to go back and read it. Makes more sense now. Though I’m still not sure that’s necessarily cognitive dissonance. Even having two conflicting beliefs, only one belief is causing her to get the shot. I’m still amused by the line, I am just also probably over-thinking it.
Where are the new flu strains suddenly coming from in a belief system that justifies the requirement of yearly flu shots while disbelieving in the existence of evolution without any cognitive dissonance?
(Though, pointing it out, pugs and retrievers are both the same species. Yet, the rapid and historically documented creation of such hugely different dog breeds via selective breeding is very much an example of evolution in action.)
The knowledge of evolution being exhibited in the comics so far is too simplified for any wiggle room. After all, Joyce has clearly exhibited that she’ll in no way advocate the species-forming principles of macroevolution, but that she’s okay with something proven over and over again in recorded human history– the creation of new breeds and changed appearances without speciation, microevolution.
One of my Seventh-Day Adventist friends (with whom I don’t really discuss such controversial topics because neither will agree with the other and we’ll both end up pissed) is perfectly okay with microevolution, although she discredits the more well-known theories. :p
Basically, it’s okay for a creationist to agree with genetic drift, mutations, and the whole shebang– so long as it doesn’t involve A. pithecus and H. hedelbergenesis conspiring in a dastardly plot to create us flesh-monkeys.
(And you know what? I’m okay with that. Where biochemical sciences are right now, we don’t have too many practical applications for macroevolution; it is, much like the study of prehistoric Ireland, mostly for the desire to accumulate knowledge. However, microevolution has numerous, undeniable regular applications and medical science would no be where it is today without it. I would be deeply aggravated by a seemingly reasonable person whose wholesale rejection of evolution covered that as well).
I’m a little disturbed by the idea that truth is only important if it has current scientific applications. (Aside from letting us know we have to keep making new flu shots and avoiding plagues, but who cares about plagues.) You might as well say that because these people are ignorant and/or idiots, they’ll never be useful as scientists anyway, so who cares what they believe? They can’t do anything more consequential than get themselves onto a school board.
Disagreement. I’m not provoked by such willing disbelief because evolution itself is, still called the Theory of Evolution, in its formal guise. It is an overwhelmingly supported, overwhelmingly expanding subject, but it is theoretical. Microevolution is not theoretical. Microevolution can be proven in a clinical setting with extreme ease. What I’m saying isn’t that truth is negligible– far be it from me to believe that– but that when push comes to shove, I won’t bother a creationist with macroevolution (if they’ll not sully the waters with unproven, difficult to belief creationist “theory”) provided that they can acknowledge the veracity of some more minor forms of evolution.
As for education– creationism can’t be proven or scientifically supported. Macroevolution can be. Any creationist who believes that Einstein was on to something with relativity or that there’s a fundamental limit to the precision that can be obtained in measuring the physical state of a quantum system– any creationist who believes these things, and I sure as hell know a lot of them who do the very minute they learn them in high school– any such creationist cannot reasonably argue against the instruction of macroevolution, because those are also theories with huge amounts of experimental support. We could argue the nuances, but if you’ll agree with basic physical and chemical theories, then regardless of religious beliefs, it’s illogical to not at least learn basic biological theories as well.
Oh my god, I just realized that I’m that cantankerous forum troll who posts over-long comments expounding on a narrow topic even though no one’s arguing with me.
“Disagreement. I’m not provoked by such willing disbelief because evolution itself is, still called the Theory of Evolution, in its formal guise. It is an overwhelmingly supported, overwhelmingly expanding subject, but it is theoretical. Microevolution is not theoretical.”
You’ve fallen into a TRAP! One that scientists deliberately set to trip you up so they can point and laugh when you get it wrong. Laugh, I tell you! And point!
When scientists say “theory” they don’t mean ‘theory’. They mean ‘explanation’. And no matter how awesome or how solidly confirmed that theory might get, it will always remain a theory, because that just means ‘explanation’.
There’s a common misconception that when a theory gets sufficiently proven it turns into something else. This is because scientists made people think that! Sitting back in their underground lairs, steepling their fingers and twirling their fez tassels they decided to bait the trap by making something called a “law”! Surely they’ll think that a proven theory becomes a law! Bwahaha! Minion, bring me my publishing laser!
In scienceese, a law is not a proven theory, of course. “Law” means ‘equation’. It is used to calculate an outcome, not to explain it. And yes, they pretty much all have numbers and variables in them, and the ones that don’t still predict a specific result. Because that’s what they’re for. Predicting or calculating, not explaining.
So yeah. Microevolution is indeed “theoretical”, because what else would it be? Of course, to a scientist, there isn’t even a difference between macroevolution and microevolution, because they’re exactly the same thing. It’s like the difference between a boat and a ship, except that scientists never got around pretending that there was some point to vaguely pretending that size made a difference.
No, it was creationists that set that trap. They’re trying to pretend that 0.999~ is different than 1. And they’ve snowed a lot of people. But the fact is there’s really no difference. And you don’t get one without the other.
Point of order – the ‘idea’ that microevolution and macroevolution are two different things as opposed to the exact same process observed over different lengths of time is a completely false one. Almost the same thing as saying that somehow ‘hours’ are a totally different concept from ‘millenium’ and sure I believe in hours but idk man, this ‘millenium’ concept seems really tricky and fake. I mean, have you lived a thousand years?
This is yet another example of (Young Earth) creationists using scientific terms that mean something to mean something else that is completely bullshit and then use it to ‘justify’ their ‘science’.
Also the USofA is about the only country in the world where evolution is considered a doubtful one-of-many possibilities and taight side by side with creationism in national/approved contexts.
Lol, yours was much easier to reply to, so I will. Of course retrievers existed last year, but this year the CDC figured all the retrievers would stay in Japan and the Pugs were the ones bent on world domination. After all, there are so many strains of the flu, it’s pretty much an educated guessing game as to which ones to produce a shot for each year. The way I understand it, the “flu” could not change for a good long while and we would still be susceptible to it even if we got a different shot for a different strain every year. *shrug* Maybe I’ve misunderstood.
You have. The CDC has no reason to withhold vaccines for a disease unless they believe it’s universally dead. One thing that diseases are great at doing is spreading, even from a single contagious individual, and thus we like to cover our bases by cultivating herd immunity. And there’s little harm in spamming the bases by immunizing against everything.
So yeah – if the CDC knew about it last year, they would have immunized against it last year. The problem is that new strains keep popping up. Gee, I wonder how that happens…
I’m pretty certain the CDC does not spam you with a vaccine for every strain of flu on the planet. They vaccinate you for the strain you are most likely to contract. And yes, the flu virus changes and gains and loses immunities and weaknesses over the years, but so far as I can tell, it’s still classified as “Flu” no matter how many changes it undergoes.
According to Wikipedia: “Due to the high mutation rate of the virus, a particular influenza vaccine usually confers protection for no more than a few years. Every year, the World Health Organization predicts which strains of the virus are most likely to be circulating in the next year (see Historical annual reformulations of the influenza vaccine), allowing pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines that will provide the best immunity against these strains. The vaccine is reformulated each season for a few specific flu strains but does not include all the strains active in the world during that season. It takes about six months for the manufacturers to formulate and produce the millions of doses required to deal with the seasonal epidemics; occasionally, a new or overlooked strain becomes prominent during that time.
.The first convincing record of an influenza pandemic was of an outbreak in 1580.”
In other words, even though the flu “evolves” many times a year, supposedly to the point that I’ve heard countless times “proves” evolution… it’s still distinctly recognizable over 400 years later.
Possibly. I had a biology instructor who was fired for the very infraction of throwing out the entire semester’s curriculum in order to shove evolution down my throat. (I looked him in the eyes when I turned in my final blank. And I essentially gave my parents the middle finger for telling me to appease him no matter what he was trying to get out of me. He was fired without my involvement.) I don’t mean offense to the evolution crowd on this forum, but I will admit that I take my position a little more antagonistically as I normally would. In any case, even growing up in what I have come to realize was a very liberal Christian church, the leap from anything being both ancestor to plant and animal is questionable. If I am completely honest, I am primarily what is being labeled here as a “New Earther.” though it really doesn’t matter if God used evolution to achieve the same result or not. In this particular case, I’m just saying that it doesn’t matter if the flu changes each year or not (it does, I’m not arguing that it doesn’t, just that hypothetically, if it “decided” not to), because different strains are greater or lesser threats to public safety each year. But if you want to understand why Joyce will not accept evolution, you only have to look as far as some of the most liberal of us in the non-evolution camp. And just from the comments in this forum alone, I’m not surprised that many Christian’s label science as a whole ungodly (as misguided as that is) when people here say that a Christian is less of a scientist just because they have beliefs that disagree with the evolutionary belief.
I’m trying to put this in terms that can be understood. Why do you expect Christianity to learn your “correct” definition of a small section of science when they are demeaned for not believing before they learn what it is? No, I don’t know the small, distinct points of evolutionary theory. Before I was “taught” evolutionary theory, I was told that I was stupid for believing creationism. In order to learn the basics of evolutionary theory, I was required to believe BY FAITH that creationism was wrong and evil, and if I did so, then I had a scientific mind capable of appreciating evolution. Once anyone is told something that ridiculous, they know to hang onto something no matter what contradicts it. Why? Because people will lie and misrepresent and expect silly things of you no matter what you do and know. So you better hold onto what you’ve already been taught. No matter what you are taught from here on, hold onto what you knew before because it is under attack, whether for good reason or for bad. No, I don’t believe in evolution to the point of all life on earth having a common ancestor. I don’t imagine the flu turning into pigs, but I also don’t expect 10 billion generations of the flu to be as easy to recognize and plan for as the last if 10 billion if generations of primates was supposed to be allowed to diverge into both apes and humans. I know what could be said to me to change my mind, but as yet, I have not had someone willing to come on equal ground, so I will hold onto my “meh” attitude and simply keep fighting members of both sides from my middle position.
I’m… very sorry you had a science teacher who thought you needed to understand science?
1) “beliefs that disagree with the evolutionary belief”
Again, there is no such thing as BELIEF in evolution.
The reason why the Christian scientist is a bad scientist is because he allows himself to have beliefs that can not be threatened or augmented or even changed by new information. That those beliefs are religious is irrelevant — he’s being a bad scientist because his mind is fundamentally closed to new ideas, and that will always stunt his ability to use tools that RELY on at least an attempt to be unbiased.
Does this make sense to you? It’s not being religious that is problematic, it’s being too attached to a particular unverifiable fact, attached enough that you will not just doubt but ignore solid evidence to the contrary. Anyone can fall into this trap, but for a Christian scientist it is practically required.
2) Tone policing is not okay. Yes, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but oppressed minorities — all non-Christians count, in modern America! — should not be told to express their pain more politely because otherwise they will hurt their oppressors’ feelings and then it will be THEIR fault that their oppressor hasn’t learned anything.
3) Creationism wouldn’t be so “bad” if it weren’t causing material disenfranchisement. Again, Christians are an oppressive majority in this country, with their “wars on Christmas” and their “no Atheist or Muslim should be allowed religious freedom and they’re also probably all evil” and their “gay sex should be criminal and gay marriage should be illegal or at least suitably marginalized”.
4) Christianity is not under any real attack. Keeping church and state separate is not the same thing as attacking or undermining religion. Neither is teaching children verifiable facts. Doesn’t God out and out say he won’t ever prove he exists to man because he wants your faith? How hard is it to explain that to kids who are taught about evolution, instead of pretending we can’t prove evolution exists and that everyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or an agent of the Devil?
No one cares what your PERSONAL beliefs are. Your first amendment right and the establishment clause and numerous other laws across the country protect your right to spiritual beliefs. They just don’t protect you from ever being exposed to ideas that disagree with yours.
5) I’m not an expert on evolution and it’s been years since my last college class, so if you really want an explanation for how evolution works and why the flu virus should still be recognizable, Google will help you.
0. He wasn’t trying to make me learn science, he threw out the science he was supposed to teach us in favor of spending the entire semester on his favorite subject. Even had I aced that class, I would not have learned science.
1. “Before I was “taught” evolutionary theory, I was told that I was stupid for believing creationism. In order to learn the basics of evolutionary theory, I was required to believe BY FAITH that creationism was wrong and evil.” In other words, before any facts or research or evidence is presented, one is expected to believe it or be considered stupid. This is the main thing that bugs me. The suggestion is that science clearly and without question proves there is no God. And that any scientist who sees God’s existence confirmed in science and not refuted is a bad scientist. So anything that threatens or attempts to change the belief that there is no God is equally unassailable. I’d agree that to be a good scientist, one should be able to look at what they learn and research without bias. For one, that is as impossible as it is for a journalist, but for two, that should be equally true for an atheist as a Christian.
3. Creationism isn’t causing these views. People who have these views often are creationists, but a creationist does not automatically hold any political stance for being a creationist.
4. I never claimed an attack on Christianity. I don’t believe there is an attack on Christianity (I think Christianity is destroying itself more than anything). No, God doesn’t say that he wont prove he exists. The early church fathers talked with and to God personally and he repeatedly outright shows himself over and over in the Bible. Biblically, faith is something very different than simple belief. But since actual faith is so difficult, belief is usually substituted to make the offering plate happy.
0. Sometimes when you teach a class that is unexpectedly remedial in an important part of science…
No, seriously. You are not really going to garner any sympathy from me here. I’m feeling bad for your teacher.
1. No, science does not “prove” there is no God. Any scientist or even PHILOSOPHER worth their salt will tell you how difficult it is to prove a negative, and science is not really too concerned with proving the nonexistence of supernatural forces. What science has done is found no evidence for the existence of God, and an explanation for the formation of the universe that does not require God. There is a difference.
So, no, atheism is NOT a requirement for being a good scientist. I would also argue that atheism is not always a BELIEF that there is no God; it’s actually the LACK of belief in God, which is not the same thing.
(Suppose I’ve never seen carrots before, or any evidence that carrots exist: I live in a carrotless country. When confronted by the existence of carrots outside my country, I will realize that carrots exist, and incorporate that knowledge into my daily life. If I’d had an actual BELIEF concerning the nonexistence of carrots, I might try to pretend the carrots were something else, like an unusually thick and orange-y piece of asparagus, but since I only had a lack of belief in their existence, I am not even really “wrong” about anything, just more informed now than I was before.)
The reason why I am still not really responding to your specific account of being “forced” to “blindly” reject Creationism is because I am… skeptical, to put it mildly. Did you run into some bad scientists who don’t understand the basic principles of their own field? It’s certainly possible. I can also imagine some rushed teachers who just wanted to put aside the question of God because I can’t even imagine how exhausting it would be to teach astronomy in a class full of students who raise their hands at every question and say, “Because God wanted it that way.”
I’m reminded of a philosophy class I took in college, where our professor told us at the outset that “Because God said so” didn’t have a place in our debates.
I can easily imagine a religious student being offended by that and deciding the teacher was telling them that being religion was wrong, but the teacher went on to explain that “Because God said so” can answer literally every possible question, and we are here for a deeper discussion than that, so she wanted us to know right at the outset that when we were writing essays or debating each other in mock-debates, simple all-encompassing undefeatable answers were kind of like cheating.
You were perfectly allowed to believe in God in her class, but she still needed you to pretend at least for the semester that you weren’t allowed to use that belief as an explanation for, say, the existence of morality.
(And she certainly had a point; the few philosophers that assumed the existence of God in their work tended to write much simpler theses; Descartes’s own proof of God’s existence satisfied him, but it committed some basic logical fallacies that made it a weak argument, because he arrived at the question with the answer already in mind and failed to anticipate, let alone answer, many basic arguments that could be easily levied against his thesis.)
So here we are, where I can perfectly imagine a scenario where you felt your beliefs were under attack but they weren’t.
3. Only because you don’t have to interpret the Bible literally to be a Creationist. But we are not just talking about Creationists in general, we are talking about the evolution-deniers, the 46% of America that believes God created man and all the animals as we are today. If you are interpreting the Bible that literally, then you also think homosexuality is a sin, and you are not really in favor of giving people rights for their “sinning”.
Hence material disenfranchisement.
So, I could have phrased it more clearly, because the literal interpretation is more the root of the problem than the Creationism. Happy?
4. If you never claimed an attack on Christianity, what was with the way you described events in point 1, just now? Let alone your earlier text, which contained a lot of [I guess, theoretical?] Christian response to [I guess, theoretical?] attacks, like clinging all the harder to their beliefs?
Anyway.
“And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6)
“Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'” (John 20:29)
The only people who ever talked to God directly were people in the Old Testament; talking to Jesus hardly counts. And even then, they heard voices, or saw a bush spontaneously combust, neither of which is clinching proof they could even use to convince themselves, let alone other people.
I’m not a Biblical scholar or a Christian, but I did read the thing. God seemed patently uninterested in convincing anyone of his existence unless he needed them to do something for him, and even then he [deliberately, I would argue] gave them no proof they could ever take to another living soul.
TL;DR: You don’t have to reject God to be a good scientist, but you do have to be able to keep your mind open to explanations other than God while you are working. You have to be able to maintain a certain emotional detachment and not let your personal religious beliefs get between you and the truth of any scenario. This is perfectly possible in the “all science is true, and God created science” scenario, where the Bible is metaphorical and the six days refer to untold eons of time, or where you’re willing to accept that the people who wrote the Bible were human and may have been divinely inspired yet still got some of the message wrong, like a game of telephone.
And, becoming distinctly less a short summary with every word, I must add that it CAN still cause problems. The Einstein example is the most famous, but by no means the only such one. He was a brilliant man who embraced much of science, but he still believed that “God does not play dice with the universe,” and that conviction caused him to reject solid evidence and left his theories incomplete.
I’m not telling you that being a Christian scientist means being a bad scientist to be mean, or because I think all religious people are stupid. I’m telling you it because it is historically true. Because one of the most brilliant men EVER fell victim to it. How arrogant must others be to assume it would never be true of them?
Better yet, they don’t even need to be injected, they just absorb it. Some of those bacteria are even inside you serving esential roles in your body. Effectively they are a part of you. And, they swap DNA among themselves and with other bacteria as it passes through. It’s happening inside all of us right now! So.. I guess it does work that way for humans… in a way.
I went to a religious high school myself. They taught that things like the flu virus changing every year was micro-evolution, small changes within a species. They taught that large changes such as becoming a new species was macro-evolution. They taught that micro-evolution was real and macro-evolution was so improbable as to be impossible.
They backed this up with a very incomplete understanding of evolution based entirely on single point mutations and the percentage of those that either get ‘repaired’ by the cell and not passed on or are harmful rather than benificial. They did not talk about jumping genes, viral remnants or anything else that drives evolution.
I’m surprised that nobody has brought this up. I thought it was common knowledge that this is what many young earth creationists believe. Of course many evolution skeptics don’t go to shcools that teach them about this stuff and genrally just don’t think about it. I’m not saying they all have this micro vs macro response ready to hand out when confronted like Joyce was. The comic is very realistic. I’m just surprised not to see micro vs macro in the comments anywhere.
I always looked at the whole Micro- and Macro- thing in terms of someone thinking that the apple falling on Newton’s head was Micro-gravity and the Moon staying in orbit around the Earth is Macro-gravity.
True, and I believe it’s standard to offer a snack and drink of some form after giving blood on this side of the Atlantic, too. But I’m pretty sure they stop offering lollipops for flu shots in college. If not, I’m clearly missing out.
D’awwwwwwww! Those eyes! I’m getting such a freakin’ overdose of cuteness, I can’t even gloat over the defeat of sectarian obscurantism; I want to hug Joyce and tell her it’s gonna be all right! TwT
There is a difference between believing “organism can adapt to their environment”, and believing “humans’ 10^7 ancestors were apes”.
There is a difference between “not believing in ‘science'” (as if all of science were some kind of belief system, like believing in magic or something), vs “not believing the universe was spontaneously auto-created in a ‘big bang'”
(A theory which, ironically, goes against existing accepted scientific “laws”, such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy of the universe always heads towards decreasing.)
I didn’t realize any Creationists still pushed forward that old “big bang/evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics” thing. I thought the folks who did that got laughed off the planet decades ago.
because because
here’s the really really simple thing about that
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? It says nothing about “the energy of the UNIVERSE always heading towards decreasing.” There are two key words you’ve replaced with different words — it’s about a CLOSED SYSTEM and ENTROPY. In a CLOSED SYSTEM, the amount of ENTROPY cannot decrease. It is NOT “the energy of the universe always decreases.”
And for years some folks used this misinterpretation of what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics really is until they got laughed at too much. (I think some Creationist sites now actively warn against using it.) They thought they’d found this sweet loophole that disproved everything, and especially thought it disproved evolution. Because, well, yeah, if Earth were a closed system, the amount of energy could never increase and this place would be a dead husk in 4 billion years instead of life.
but
you see
earth is not a closed system
there’s this thing called the SUN
And as for the universe? Read this. If the Big Bang were actually in conflict with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, nobody’d ever have started putting stock in it. It’s a no-starter.
But, yes, I will give you this: If the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics were this other thing you made up that’s not actually the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then YEAH I GUESS YOU’RE RIGHT, and that all of modern science is false based on a rule they themselves made up and somehow ignore all the time it’s so incredibly obvious.
Adapting to an environment is a form of evolution…and humans just share a common ancestor with modern primates (especially the apes). Most people who bring up the second law can’t explain the first or third…there’s even a zeroth law.
The big bang is part of physics, evolution is biology. How is it less likely than a deity creating it all? Who says God didn’t create the big bang?
Humans evolved from ape-like ancestors.
Apes evolved from human-like ancestors.
Which were both the same ancestor.
They’re cousins. Not grandparents. Why is this so hard for people to grock?
Yeah, I don’t know. I have very few good things to say about Bible literalist kooks and all, but when it gets down to the individual people, kids that are raised that way and just don’t know any better, I just feel sorry for them. Joyce does need to expand her horizons and become educated about science and the proper relationship between faith and science, but watching her be the comic’s butt monkey kind of makes me uncomfortable.
I know I wouldn’t be as…. brutal? with her if I was the one discussing it, but the characters aren’t me. With Dina, it’s not really making fun of her, it’s just totally incomprehensible that someone could honestly think evolution was ‘made up’, and more specifically, still get yearly flu shots. With Sarah, well, let’s be honest, she’s kind of a ‘B word’; that doesn’t mean she doesn’t want Joyce to grow (in fact, she once commented on being sorry that Joyce probably would lose her naivete eventually); but she also appreciates that what Joyce is going through is kind of a ridiculous situation.
(At least, that’s how I interpret it, but I’m not The Willis, so who knows?)
Probably not, because it’s not a spectrum. 3/4 of that is all just creationism, with different looney cosmologies and/or theologies that have no real relation to the question. There are really only three options: evolution, creationism, and “intelligent design”. (Or I like to call it, “god goes to huge massive ludicrous insane lengths to pretend not to have created anything, apparently just to dick with people design”.) This is not a continuum, this is reality, mythology, and bait-and-switch.
I got tired counting all the questions you begged, so I’m just calling you an anti-religion snob instead.
But thank you, person with a Rachel avatar. That article was pretty enlightening. In my opinion, everyone Day-Age and down is cool, but everyone else gets a good ol’ eye-roll.
Call me hard to distract, instead. The 35 flavors of creationism differ on a variety of aspects, but these differences have nothing to do with the actual question: “How did all these different critters (and us) come into existence, at a species level?” (At an individual level we look for mommies.)
When asking that question, “They were all poofed into existence as they are!” and “They were all poofed into existence as they are, and the earth is also flat!” are the same answer.
In that list, there were only three different answers. Or there were an infinite number of answers, because between “evolution, and it’s been X minutes since the big bang” and “evolution, and it’s been X+1 minutes since the big bang”, between those there are an infinite number of ‘different’ theories of evolution. Because irrelevent differences matter!
Sorry, but I’ve got to call bull on that statement. There is way more to this than just “one out of three, point!”
There is no such thing as the creationism. There’s different versions, some of which quite fundamentally differ from each other. Throwing them all together is nearly as ignorant as a fanatical Flat Earther and does not help the discussion.
It’s a generalization based on “supernatural forces created the earth”. If you call all religions fairy tales, the fine details of whether we were created in six days with a garden of Eden or were ejaculated into existence by a pair of incestuous siblings (that’s how Japan was formed!) don’t matter. They are all explanations for life on this planet that neither rely on not incoporate the evidence we have here on Earth.
Didn’t click the link, but the whole “microevolution” concept is a meaningless invention.
You can have your beliefs! You are welcome to them, provided they don’t involve me going to Hell for the way I was born. (It’s hard for me to be a neutral party there, because your beliefs are no longer just personal: they are being used in the material world to deny me rights.) But you cannot and should not expect your personal beliefs to be seen as equal to the best information we have about objective reality. When you start saying, “I have faith in God *and* in science, I just reject a couple of well-proven scientific theories because they conflict with God,” expect eyerolling.
Because scientists don’t have faith in science, and because you have just demonstrated that you can only ever be a bad scientist, because you are letting your preconceived notions overrule things uncritically.
This is not meant to be an insult — it’s just a fact. Einstein was a brilliant man, but his conviction that “God does not play dice with the universe” held him back and caused him to go to his grave still denying fundamental information that left his theories flawed and incomplete.
The Judeo-Christian God is by his own admission a jealous god. He doesn’t want you to ever let anything else be more important to you than him. And believing in him as the ultimate answer will always mean that you are attempting to make the facts for your hypothesis, rather than looking for a hypothesis to fit the facts.
I noticed. Because if you followed my comments, I do think that species are evolving and interchanging. That the Earth was created the way modern astronomy/geology says, the universe most likely as well (though granted: There is a bit more room for speculation there.) I’m not really sure how the first life came to be and how it went from there to the first diversity. But then I’m hardly alone in that. 😉
In short: If there’s enough, scientifically sound proof for something, I will accept it as truth. Unless proven otherwise by new data of course.
I do also believe that there is a God behind it all, who at least got things started. Now that I read more into the matter, that actually means I already qualify as a creationist. Huh. Never even considered that, truth be told. But it shows that there is more to the whole thing than often presumed.
And no, I don’t believe the bible to be inerrant. Heck, there are clear inconsistencies in it. It still has value though. Some good things can be taken from it. If you use your common sense that is.
I have extremely mixed feelings about the Bible, obviously. 😉 But yeah, sorry for any venom that got on you, I’ve enjoyed conversing with you and reading your comments elsewhere.
If you had bothered to follow my link you would have seen my point wasn’t microevolution.
Most Christians (its the official stance of the Catholic Church and most mainline Protestant churches) believe in Theistic Evolutionsim. Theistic evolution is at its simplest “all science is true and God created science”. How much God intervenes and controls differs based on the church but still…
I outright stated I hadn’t read your link. My reply was on a phone, and I was tossing out an example of a theistic attempt to draw lines through evolution that aren’t really there, cordoning off sections of it to declare acceptable.
That said, Catholicism is only one type of Christianity, and there’s still a sizable percentage of CATHOLICS who don’t believe in evolution, worldwide. (Yes, that makes them bad Catholics, but they seem to manage. They didn’t all stop using birth control when the Pope said it was wrong, either; they lobbied him to change his mind, and ignored him when he didn’t.) And 46% of all the people in the USA do not believe in evolution, as in, they believe “that God created man and all the animals as they are now”. So… yeah. That’s definitely not “most Christians” believing “all science is true and God created science”.
“Evolutionism” isn’t a thing, btw.
Finally: I have no problem with the idea that God lit the match that started the universe. I do have some problems with the Judeo-Christian God, but mostly I have problems with his followers, to whom, being only human, I am willing to attribute loads of errors in translation. (And we know there have been loads of errors in translation; compare the Hebrew and the English yourself, there are sites out there that break it down very nicely. I especially like one website that explains why all the passages that seemingly condemn homosexuality are literally talking about something else completely.)
And I am also spiritual myself. I am an agnostic, albeit one who specifically believes that if something else created the universe, it’s probably too amazing and strange for our tiny human brains to comprehend.
So my belief in a god, or multiple gods, is a bit abstract and impersonal. It doesn’t affect my daily life, and since no form of god is necessary for life to have evolved as it did, I am very open to the possibility that there is nothing. I don’t fear that, because rationally I know that if I die and there’s nothing, I won’t be CONSCIOUS of the nothingness. It’s not like I’ll spend eternity in a void, lonely or whatever. So that’s okay. Obviously some form of Heaven is preferable, but I literally won’t be capable of minding. I tend a little more on the reincarnation side anyway.
BUT, and for me here is the sticking point, I know there’s no evidence to support these abstract beliefs. They don’t hurt or even affect anyone around me, and I am capable of being a good person without needing to think I will be punished or rewarded for my behavior after death.
And I kind of wish more self-proclaimed religious people put more effort into being good people, and less into telling everyone else what will happen after they die and that they need to stop [behaviors that harm no one], because they’ve twisted a badly-translated book into letting them police other people’s sex lives.
I call bull on all the different variations of creationism, so we’re even. Not that they’re actually different when it comes to the question at hand anyway; the discussion is not about cosmology or the universal creation as a whole. It’s where all the species came from. And on that link there were only three answers. At most.
I’m having trouble understanding your position on this. Everybody I know who is Christian believes in Theistic Evolution. Its the official stance of the Catholic Church and most older Protestant churches.
My position is that there ain’t a continuum of different answers to how the difference species got here. There are three answers. “Magic!”, “Natural processes!”, and “Magic masquerading as natural processes!”.
You wondered aloud whether anybody would mention that there’s a spectrum of answers. My response is ‘probably not’. Because it ain’t a spectrum. It’s three distinct points. That’s pretty much my whole position.
Unrelated rambling: Theistic evolution falls into the ‘evolution’ camp, by the description on your site; for it to work, evolution as a process must be real. On the other hand, about 46% of Americans don’t believe in evolution. So obviously some people buy into the other two camps. Joyce would be an example; so would young!Willis. From this I use my brilliant powers of deduction to conclude that you don’t personally know more than 54% of Americans, Christian or not. Not that it really matters one way or the other.
I mean, I’m just saying. It is statistically impossible for you to know most Christians, and as begbert2 says above, we know from polling that 46% of Americans don’t believe in evolution at all, theistic or otherwise.
I’ll be the first to admit I am *new* to these comics. I haven’t read It’s Walky or the others yet, this is my first one.
And I’m also a Christian. Very strong in my beliefs.
And please don’t take this as an attack on anything, but it bothers me that everytime Joyce seems to come on- she seems to be the butt of a “haha you’re a Christian and so you’re stupid” joke.
Constantly with the whole she doesn’t believe in evolution and therefore she is uneducated.
I’m sorry but Evolution, while factual in anyway is still a theory. Not to say it is or isn’t true or that a theory can not be true, but since it’s a theory you don’t *have* to believe in it to be considered an intelligent individual.
If she were really blind and stupid, she probably wouldn’t be in college right now.
That’s not so much the problem though, as I’m waiting for a chance for *her* to shine. For *her* faith to come out on top of any of these conversations. Though I know that’s not likely to happen.
I’d just like some reassurance this isn’t one of those, “Educate the poor Christian girl until she realizes it’s stupid to believe in Creationism.” storylines.
Ok, first of all, I think you might wanna read this page: http://www.dumbingofage.com/about/
Especially the part about Joyce being autobiographical. That is, if you haven’t already.
Second of all, truth never demands belief. You don’t have to believe that scientific fact is true. It’ll be true whether you believe it or not. Not to mention, that “it’s just a theory” ‘argument’ is pretty easily combated. Gravity is a theory, but I can assume it’s safe to say you haven’t jumped off a building for that reason.
Third of all, yes, I realize this comment is 3 years and 2 days old.
Joyce has previously acknowledged that she wilfully keeps secret from herself things that would interfere with her beliefs; the literal defenition of doublethink, where she’s conscious of some given information and at the same time consciously ignoring it.
Which while a very impressive mental exercise is obviously bad for her psychological well-being. Under this constant input of information she needs to not-learn it’s only a matter of time until something slips through and is allowed to teach her something.
That’s what happens here: A minor but irreversible ontological shock. I like to think it’s a way to soften up your head and prepare it to accommodate growing and enabling bigger ideas. It’s painful, sure, but that’s life for you. We have to trust that it’s worthwhile in the end.
Loading ...
Was Joyce wearing that shirt before?!
Also THOSE EYES @_@
Oh god her eyes Q_Q
those eyes are the most awesome eyes ever, david should always draw her eyes that way
Well, I’m sure a few of us will take those eyes to be our gravatars.
So you can look at it all the time from now on.
“Do you take these eyes to be your lawfully wedded gravatar?” was my immediate reaction to your post. Not sure if it was intentional, but good job sir.
I like how they keep expanding from panel to panel, until in the final panel where they’re the same size as those of Haruhi Fujioka’s from Ouran Host Club 😀
At least Haruhi very rarely crying. If ever :/
A couple of times I think… also depends on if you watch the anime or read the manga (I did both, the manga is better imo… they’re the same for 90%, but ending is completely different).
Yes, she was. (Had to go back and look. Would’ve said “No, under a sweater” otherwise.)
She was. I’ve been waiting for her face to match it since monday.
epic.
Those are eyes to swallow other eyes. Some mouths could fit in those eyes, just the irises even.
Especially if you’ve got big eyes… and a small mouth.
Yeah it has, Joyce didn’t take Joe’s advice about calming her tits very seriously.
Yes, I remember because of all the “calm your tits” jokes.
See, that’s why I post like once a day, it ate my follow-up post of
“INDEED SHE DID IN APPROPRIATELY SNEAKY WILLIS STYLE”
Sarah…you continue to make me like you.
Sarah becomes more likeable every moment she’s in a panel.
MOAR.
I think I agree. Sarah’s fantastic in this one. 😀
Win for the Mike gravatar
Thanks, heh. Been Mike for the past few gravatar changes now – maybe I’m channelling him or something. 😛
awwww i was kinda hoping dina would explain evolution to joyce, although for joyce i suspect this is just as painful
Perhaps Dina did. She’s not crying because of the needle.
She’s crying because her previously unquestioned core beliefs have had the brutal excavation pick of justice wedged between them and the surrounding geological strata of her mind.
The problem is most creationists vs. evolutionists debates are taken as science vs faith.
Science is a PROCESS
Observe
Theorize
Devise
Test
Repeat
Technology is the application of science based theory/calculation outside the realm of the mostly natural.
Evolution is a theory based on some of the available factual information with a huge number of assumptions ignoring theological history.
Creationism is a theory based on some of the available factual information and recorded theological history.
Evolutionists and Creationists just have faith in their own theory.
Unfortunately both sides have uneducated followers, like Joyce.
Then there are the radical evolutionists and creationists who hold tight to their own faith while learning all of the opposing faith’s theories.
Last thought. Whether you believe in random amino acids joining or Adam and Eve. We all have a single point in our genealogical origin.
Evolution is a theory in the same way Gravity is a theory.
Creationism is a theory in the same way “I think bigfoot has been stealing from my trashcan” is a theory.
note to self: steal this, is brilliant
It just pains me to think that I could have made it better by saying
in the same way “it could be bunnies” is a theory.
But I suppose that one doesn’t sound as entirely outlandish outside the context of the Buffy episode.
I’ve actually read an Atheist claim that Evolution is a fact because it has genes, but gravity theory can’t find its “graviton.”
I hate when religious people claim that people who believe in evolution have “faith” in it. By definition, faith is the belief in something intangible that you don’t have evidence for, you just trust in it. When a person believes in evolution, it’s not faith; it’s based on facts and science and observation. It’s not the same. If you value the concept of faith, then what I’m saying shouldn’t lessen its validity to you, but we do believe in things in fundamentally different ways.
Dawkins defines faith as belief withOUT evidence.
Sort of like the Axioms of science: belief that something is true without evidence to support it.
You have faith that everything the scientists tell you is true. Have you ever actually held the bones of Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”) in your hands? Or tested the carbon date yourself? No, you have faith in the scientists who tell you what to believe.
“Evolution is a theory based on some of the available factual information with a huge number of assumptions ignoring theological history.
Creationism is a theory based on some of the available factual information and recorded theological history.”
I…’ve got three problems with that statement, actually.
First is that evolution, that which this word actually comprises, is based on all factual information currently available and has only very few assumptions left. Though the latter cannot be said about many theories derived from (but not being part of) it.
Second is that creationism usually* ignores some to all (depending on what version you’re looking at, there are a lot, quite different ones) factual information currently available.
*I want to point out here that there is in fact at least one version of creationism that accepts evolution and merely states that God created Earth and the first life and that he’s the leading force behind evolution.
Third is calling the contents of the bible “theological history” which is an entirely wrong term to use here. Theological history would for example be a list of all popes and antipopes in chronological order. The contents of the bible however would rather be called religious scripture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI
“Evolutionists”. No. There are no evolutionists, because we do not subscribe to a belief or theory — we subscribe to objective reality, and if evolution is ever disproven (there’s a prize of quite a lot of money actually just sitting there, waiting to be claimed by anyone who can!), then scientists will discard it.
And science would be REALLY EXCITED TO DO THAT. New information is something it thrives on. Every scientist out there would love to be the person who discovers information huge and mindblowing enough to overturn evolution.
It won’t happen, because evolution is incredibly incredibly factual. But the scientific community that you imagine as worshipping Darwin would love the chance to throw him under a bus for the next big advance. It’s just NOT faith, and there are NO “evolutionists”. To be so wedded to any one explanation is to be a BAD scientist.
(Further note: even if evolution were at this point somehow fundamentally disproven, it would probably still be no more “wrong” than Newtonian physics. The best way to think of scientific progress is to imagine a very grainy, blurry photo seen up close. We see it as green and analyze the shapes and theorize it might be vegetation; then someone like Einstein comes along and puts the photo into focus, zooming out a bit more, and we see that what we thought was just grass is clearly a forest. It being a forest doesn’t mean the green we saw wasn’t vegetation, just that “vegetation” wasn’t the whole story. This misconception — that science is being constantly thrown into the trash as nonsense, so why bother understanding the latest fads?! — is another fundamental misunderstanding that lots of people use as an excuse to discredit it, so mentioning it seemed appropriate here.)
Joyce should’ve headed Neil Young’s warning about the needle and the damage done.
Delicious schadenfreude.
Delicious.
And plenty nutritious!
Why do people use the word schadenfreude when we already had the word epicaricacy in the English language.
Because schadenfreude is more fun to say.
But WAY less fun to spell.
You just gotta remember the schadenfreude song, and it’ll help you spell it.
And yet, much more fun to watch other people try to spell.
…I see where you’re going with this.
Ah yes, German, it’s compound word structure allows us to make up silly things like “Herzkreislaufwiederbelebung” in place of “C.P.R.” or “Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung” instead of “Speed limit”. “Rindfleischetikettierungs überwachungsaufgaben übertragungsgesetz” is just overdoing it for it to look like a really serious language, just a bit.
Some people wonder why I took Latin instead of German despite the fact that I’m a quarter German on my father’s side. This is that reason; if you can pronounce those, please do so over the sink so you don’t splatter drool over the rest of us.
Latin? why not Italian?
I can pronounce those just fine without even the littlest of spitting drool. But then I’m from the German speaking part of Switzerland which gives me somewhat of an advantage in that department. 😉
But there is a reason as to why there’s an annual selection of an Unwort (non-word, or something similar) of the year. Choosing the worst concoction that media, politicians or simply society has come up with the previous year.
Of course there’s some irony in that Unwort is an Unwort itself. 😀
Because nobody fucking knew it was a word until just now?
Don’t question the word usage… just goooooo with the floooowww. Get loosey-goosey, baby. Roll with it, roll with it. Just get around to Happytown. Okay I no longer know what I am saying.
Say that again and I’m gonna get a little punchy-wunchy.
Okay, I’m done making obscure references.
The first time I came across the word schadenfreude was in an article about Envy from an 80s Playboy magazine.
Yes, I actually read the articles.
I thought it only ever sold because of the quality “journalism”?
Actually, I’ve got a collection of SciFi short stories that were published in Playboy. They’ve got some good authors! Bradbury, LeGuin, Vonnegut, etc.
Yeah, the joke of “I only read it for the articles” is… well, something. But, seriously, Playboy DOES have legitimately good writing, articles, stories, etc. It does sometimes get to a point where you’ll be reading something engrossing and then be all like “Oh, right, there’s naked lady pictures on the next page. I forgot this magazine had those.”
Maybe we like germanic better than Greek? Or we never heard of it until today…
I cant even pronounce it.
I believe that the proper way to pronounce schadenfreude = shard-den-frod-dah.
No.
It’s shah-den-froy-deh.
Avenue Q alert!
Guilty by association.
No i meant i cant pronounce the other one… epicaricacy.
I’ve heard schadenfreude enough times to know how its pronounced…
epicaricacy: ep-pee-cah-rah-car-cee.
Not cah-ree-cah-cee?
Anyway. Face it people! German is just cool like that! 😀
And as far as I know, it’s by far not the only German word that English speaking Americans have adopted.
We do? This is news to me!
It’s news to dictionary.com, too – which does know “schadenfreude”.
I recently had call to come up with an Old English word for “schadenfreude”. I went with sceþþewynn.
There is a song about “Schadenfreude”
When there is a song made about the word epicaricacy, I promise I’ll use it
We also have the word schadenfreude in English.
I mean, people use the word tuchas instead of butt, ass, hindquarters, etc.
We have both Freedom and Liberty.
What makes epicaricacy a better word to use?
Because hipsters know schadenfreude already sold out.
Scrolled down the list of replies there and am suitably displeased to see nobody give the real answer – “Simpsons did it.”
And of course, Boston Legal, which is my excuse.
Because not as many people know ‘epicaricacy’ is a word, and even fewer knwo what it means.
Because constructing words from Greek parts is more work than stealing perfectly good words that other languages have already constructed.
I thought languages especially English
stealadopt words from other languages?Languages…
Modern English is basically equal parts early German and French with some Gaelic and a lot of madness stirred into the mix.
Schadenfreudelicious, of course.
What a sookie baby, if she had to have a needle a few decades earlier, the needle would have been a lot thicker.
Exactly! In my day, the needles were two yards long and five inches thick! They used a hammer to ram it into your skin and then funneled the vaccine inside ya. An’ the damn stuff didn’t work half the time! They’d drained it from an infected corpse and you just had to hope there was still some bugs in it, or else you were just getting’ rancid corpse water poured into the big-ass hole they’d made in ya, And we liked it! Hell, we loved it!
You had needles? In my day they would take the dead infected corpse and make you walk around with it roped to your body for a week. Body parts would fall off but you’d have to gather them up and tie them on too. But it was ok ’cause for most of us this was the only friend we ever had.
I tried to think of a way to outdo this, but I got nothing.
You had a rope? LUXURY! In my day, we had to take our corpses and have nalied to us through our back. I had to share 2 corpses and half a nail with my six brothers and you had to lift t’entire thing with your back, the way a proper labourer does it. And walk uphill twice a day in the snow.
Course, you try telling the youth of today and they don’t believe you.
You had corpses? We had to carry around handfuls of primordial ooze.
You got to carry it? In my day they dipped the claws of starving tigers in the ooze and let them maul you once a day.
This is made of win.
Luxury. We had our nail repossessed. We had to make string out of bark and chew holes in our skin to sew the corpse on.
You had BARK?!
In my day, we just died of the flu.
In my day, we had to evolve into the flu, and then infect ourselves.
O’course, I were too weak to infect myself on account of my crippling miner’s tongue, a common infection among the 12-and-unders. So I had to ingest me own brother after he’d evolved into the flu, then get tried for murder.
Funny, because it is true.
Seems like I’ve come down with a case of the feels.
Sarah is me. If I was black.
And I had a vagina.
We can only dream.
I don’t remember picking the name Darth…
Oh, yeah. My avatar was Sarah in shortpacked! Not DoA.
Good god! Her blue eyesacs are leaking!
It’s what they call ‘tears’. It’s a sign of their weakness…
It’s not a sign of weakness but a sign of properly working tear ducts.
Pupils dilated to 300% their normal size may be some cause for concern, however.
Technically those aren’t her pupils dilating, those are her irises expanding. If you see this happen in real life, contact your local exorcist.
I’m fairly sure that I don’t have a local exorcist, but I’ll check…
No, I don’t. Not even close. There are many helpful guides online that tell me how to conduct my own exorcism, though, including this informative wikihow article. I particularly like the bit about how I can give a demon a ‘legal right’ to enter me if I use horoscopes.
Or if you play around one of them wee-jee broads. Got to stay away from the carrot cards, too.
I can categorically state that your local Catholic priest is either capable of performing an exorcism himself, or can get hold of someone who can, if you should have an occasion to ask. So you probably do, at that.
–It’s a long story.
Demons have a legal right to enter you if you’re dumb and gullible? Huh. That kinda makes sense, actually.
Even so though, it would surely depend on the local laws of your area. So contact your lawyer and ask him to clarify what the applicable statutes there are that have been passed that permit demonic possession, because really, this is the sort of thing you don’t want until you’re in court to find out.
… That was the single most hilarious wikihow ever, and I love your gravatar more than words can say.
I know I should be with Sarah on this one but… those eyes man… I just wanna hug her…
I don’t think we should be with Sarah, she’s being a B-word. Joyce is being mocked for her beliefs, beliefs which she goes out of her way not to impress on others. Her not believing in evolution is a little misguided, but it’s still her choice, and Dina and Sarah are both being incredibly rude.
Uh, NO. Joyce has no problems impressing her beliefs on others. Dina was not being rude at all. Sarah is, but hey, that’s her character.
Joyce struggles with the way she believes other people should behave and the way they actually do, but she works really hard to give people leeway and let them make what she believes to be a mistake. Sometimes she oversteps her boundaries and when that happens she is informed so, but for the most part Joyce is the most accepting and flexible charater in the comic. And just because Dina doesn’t think she’s being rude doesn’t mean she isn’t being rude.
Still haven’t heard a single convincing argument as to how Dina was being rude in the previous two comics. She calmly and without any insult pointed out what she perceived as a clear flaw in Joyce’s logic and that’s it.
… why *IS* Sarah being a bongo right now anyway? I mean, she explains herself, but this does seem like actual bongo behavior that I can’t recall seeing from her before. Before, she was just grumpy and standoffish, but this is rather punch-in-the-face-able. Or, at the very least, different than what I’ve observed before. I dunno, haven’t seen her much lately so perhaps I’m just forgetting some bit of characterization.
She’s amused by blatent stupidity. It’s nowhere near face punchable.
Also can relate to the idea of cognitive dissonance due to having a lot of it herself. I like this side of Sara.
Because being mentally conflicted over something silly like a belief system isn’t worth crying over? Also it’s hilarious?
Have you ever seen someone getting put in there place when they need to be? Even if they’re your friend, it’s pretty awesome.
Perhaps that’s where the disconnect is. I don’t particularly care about Joyce’s beliefs or feel any animosity about her having them. Mostly pity and just sorta shaking my head. Bemusement at most. Also, I’m attracted to her while Sarah isn’t (yet). Therefore, even after the last few strips, I don’t feel angry at Joyce, wish her to be put in her place because she doesn’t really bother me, and don’t see any desire to see her get her comeuppence. The only time I really felt that was when she hired Mike to hit Joe and didn’t see anything wrong with that (she shoulda gotten a number of smacks equal to the number she approved for Joe to receive).
This situation about her beliefs? Small potatoes. Not something that gets me riled up. So laughing at her misery here (especially with dem eyes!) just seems excessive to me. At least Sarah acknowledges that her behavior IS pretty bongo-tastic, so it’s at least pointed out.
I get what you’re saying. I mean…Joyce can be kind of obnoxious with her beliefs and I probably only don’t pity her because A. This seems very small and B. It DOES oppose my opinion. I dunno. Maybe I’m a d-word.
Perhaps you are. But I’m not really willing to find out if you’re delicious or not. Then where could we get fanart on the spot?
Now, now, you won’t know until you try him. Would you prefer marinara or alfredo?
I prefer a BLY: bacon, lettuce, and Yotomoe sammich.
::looks at Yotomoe’s gravatar:: He… doesn’t look enthusiastic about it.
It’s not about her being put in her place, it’s about the absurdity of the situation she’s created for herself. Sarah’s not laughing at her because she doesn’t believe in evolution, she’s laughing because she doesn’t believe in evolution but is now blubbering over something she chose to do based on something she doesn’t believe in.
OK, I understand a bit more now. Thank you. I understand better now–I just don’t think it’s very funny. But, meh, not everyone’s gonna think every situation is funny, so no big. And Sarah recognizes that the joy she’s taking is particularly bongoy. So it just makes me go :/, but I see where she (and everyone else) is coming from. Thanks for the input!
Here’s why it’s funny to me: who told her to get a flu shot every year? Who explained the reason she trotted out? Knowing Joyce, I’m thinking authority figure: parent, preacher, whatever.
Now, she doesn’t appear to question where that reason comes from, or how the reason figures into a broader overview of thought. She listens because someone else told her to.
See? Hilarious.
I have to agree that I think they are being “bongoy” toward Joyce. After all the complaints about fundamentalists being “pushy” in their beliefs, I find a lot of intolerance toward letting Joyce believe what she wants. Sure, I’m sure people will talk about how obviously wrong her beliefs are, but those are _your_ reasons for why you believe the way you do, not _hers_.
If I tell you that aerodynamics isn’t a thing and that planes fly because God wants people to be closer to him, you’d be right to call me a moron. Now picture being told repeatedly that my opinion deserves respect, that it should be taught in schools, and that modern physics is a pack of lies that all true believers should ignore in favor of Intelligent Lifting and you’ll have an idea of why people hate Joyce.
HAS Joyce being doing all of what you said? I can’t recall her saying that what she believes should be taught in schools. She may *think* it, but I don’t think she’s been going around telling that to every one of her friends. She’s just been pointing out what she’s been taught in HER school(home). I don’t think she’s as guilty of doing all the things you’re saying to imagine her do. The majority of the time, she’s innocently ignorant rather than pushy. At most, she’s enthusiastic about getting people to enjoy the things she does/believe if it’s asked, like taking Dorothy to a church gathering (I can only think of it as Mass since I was raised Catholic, but I know not every denomination calls it that–if any).
I think sometimes people think worse of Joyce than she really is. I mean, if you can point out specific examples of her doing what you’re saying she’s doing, please do link them. I’m not asking as a way to refute you–if I’m wrong, I’d like to see the strips. The archive is vast so if she has done everything like that then I’m probably just forgetting. Keeping track of all this is difficult sometimes.
Joyce’s beliefs only exist because she was hidden away from reality and the objective truth about reality. ONLY. Were she not deliberately indoctrinated and brainwashed, she might easily still be a christian, but she wouldn’t be flaunting laughable ignorance about science and biology and history every third time she opened her mouth.
And that’s what it is: laughable. She believes idiotic pseudoscience but still has herself be stabbed by Science! because she doesn’t manage to activate enough brain cells to realize that her actions make no sense.
It’s like the cognitive and intellectual version of the three stooges. Laughing is a perfectly reasonable response, particularly if you’re a b-word and all.
And screw evolution denial. It’s annoying when ignorant people think everyone else is wrong. Someone’s bad education doesn’t excuse spreading false beliefs about scientific things.
Violence isn’t a good solution…and I think she’d hit back.
you didn’t have to sit through a half an hour line… not to mention a half hour debate… to see the spectacle.
the wait makes it more fun.
I think it’s simply a result of some of Joyce’s more annoying traits (everyone has some and with her they tend to come up rather often) constantly grating on her (roommate, don’t forget!) and that pent-up frustration finally finding a release here.
But flu shots don’t hurt? I am terrified of blood draws and tetanus boosters suck, but flu shots don’t even register because the needle is so tiny it’s barely even cold.
She’s crying because she learned everything she knew was a lie.
Some people are just huge wusses about needles. I used to be one myself as a kid.
For some reason, I swear flu shots hurt more than others. Not the needle itself, but the injection just seems to be painful for a while. I’m not sure if it’s an immune thing, or just psychosomatic.
It’s not just you. My whole upper arm is sore the day after I get a flu shot. I’ve had other people say the same thing.
I concur, but some folks are freaked about needles. I got allergy shots until I was 18, you get over them quickly. My brother’s been known to comment that the best part about donating blood at college is looking over and seeing a football player next to you sweating bullets.
I am freaked out about needles that I can’t see being poked into me. I have to observe the steel sliding into my flesh to be easy about it. The spinal tap I had thirty years ago was a nightmare.
On the bright side, I had a nice ‘rain ache’ just above my butt for a while.
I’m literally the opposite. The very first time I had to go get a needle in school, I overheard someone say it doesn’t hurt if you don’t look, so I just don’t look and then I never notice it.
Absolutely. Flu shots are nothing, but tetnus shots hurt like a frickin’ mother…
Of course, given that I donate blood and platelets on a regular basis, it’s entirely possible that I’ve just dulled that effect through endless repetition.
There, there, Joyce. Just put some ice on it and take a bit of Advil if you feel feverish. You’ll be fine.
And, as far as having your mental horizons expanded, it only hurts the first time.
I was actually told the opposite about needles and repetition. Some 5 years ago I got ill and as I had been in Latin America and the doctors weren’t sure what it was, they made me do a lot of blood tests during 2 weeks and when I commented to the nurse that it was like it got a little worse every time, she said that yes, in fact it tended to be so for most people.
So I guess you’re one of the lucky ones!
Though that might simply have been because you got stung so often over a very short period of time. Probably every time in the same place or at least area. Temporarily making you a bit oversensitive.
As for me, I do feel the needles. And I can tell for sure since I’m absolutely horrified by seeing a needle deeply penetrate my skin and therefore always look the opposite way.
It is however only a very slight sting, hardly worth calling pain at all. The vaccine on the other hand can hurt. Though for me it’s usually a dull ache, similar to sore muscles. Very annoying but not really bad unless you press on it forcefully or try to exert the muscle in question.
A BLOO BLA BLOOOO! A BLOO BLOO BLOOOOOOO! A BLOO BLA BLOO BLOOOO!
Ok, but seriously now, how come Sarah didn’t win the hottest girl poll?
VERY GOOD QUESTION
Because Sarah is smart and funny, but does not exude “hotness”.
Perhaps not this version, but the one from Roomies! was a contender.
I dunno about Roomies!, but when she shows up again at the end of IW! in that suit? Yeah, I can totally see that.
Ah, don’t you remember the fanservice episode where Joyce was decrying the use of fanservice in webcomics and the Sara “lost” her towel after stepping out of the shower? Mind, we didn’t see much but at least we got sexy back.
And without Justin. A double win.
You do realise it is bad netiquette to write this without leaving the corresponding archive link? 😉
Never mind “hotness”, this is the first time I remember her smiling for a whole strip.
‘Cause she was up against the Amazi-Rack and a couple of girls in the habit of taking their shirts off on-panel.
We can joke about it all we want, but even if Sarah had a hot threeway with Joyce and Amazigirl none of them would stand a chance against Sal.
Sal is one of the girls who took her shirt off on-panel, so.
Let’s test that theory.
Because Sal will always be the hottest girl.
Always.
Ha, it IS funny! Hahaha!
*Is in awe of Joyce’s giant eyes* They’re hypnotic…
Look away, otherwise you will drown in those deep blue pools
The question now is: whose disturbingly gorgeous blue eyes are more hypnotic: Joyce’s, or those of Othar Trygvassen, Gentleman Adventurer?
How do you know his eyes are blue? I’ve never seen him take off that visor.
The Foglio Uncertainty Principle, of course!
Happened in the Weasel Queen arc, and IIRC in der Kestle arc, too.
I don’t know about hypnotic, but OTHAR TRYGVASSAN, Gentleman adventurer‘s are definitely more disturbing.
Yup! Heck, the first time we meet him on der Kestle, he hasn’t got it on yet.
And yes. Othar’s, definitely. The moreso in the Weasel Queen arc, IMO, because the first time we see him it’s just some guy, but in the Weasel Queen, it’s Othar.
Othar, being a dick. *eyeroll*
Blueberry? Barney? Brick? Bum-Tickler? WHICH ONE IS IT?!
If it’s the fourth one, she could be called a L-word possibly. Has to how much Joyce could handle that, I do not know, since I’m still trying to process how she’s handling Ethan…
Granted, if not an L-word, I still wonder how Joyce would then view such an act.
It’s late, so I’m going to go over to the corner now, and ponder what happens when one says Candle-Jack on this
Sarah Doesn’t quite look like the bum-tickling type. But perhaps that’s her plan!
Bothriospondylus.
Beautifulandcaringpersonthatissharingaroomwithme?
Aww! Poor Baby Joyce Doe Eyes!
I have never seen Sarah so happy. I love it.
So, are we just talking about the science of flu shots that Joyce doesn’t believe in? Or is this comic trying to make the assertion that Christians can’t possibly believe anything that comes from science? I’m sure there are some hardcore Christians who shun all things science, but they would be far from the majority.
On the contrary, science can make God’s creation that much more awesome as we begin to see how the world (and the universe) work in all their complexities.
Of course, I’m sure now a bunch of people are going to toss various branches of science at me that seemingly can’t coexist with a belief in God. Have fun with that… Just now that I won’t be responding not because you have shaken my faith, but rather because I know that nothing I can say will shake yours. =P
Read the previous two strips for context.
And if you’re too lazy to click ‘back’, Joyce explicitly rejects evolution. Flu shots are only necessary because of evolution. It’s like not believing in snow and then buying a sled.
No, it’s a pretty ridiculous stretch to claim regular flu shots are scientifically based on evolution. Innoculation predates Darwin. You don’t need evolution to explain the continuous appearance of new virus strains and accept modern medicine against them.
And anyway, the Writer glossed over this because it would have made Kicking the Creationist a little bit harder and softened the joke, but Christian Science (shudder, I know) doesn’t really oppose the principles of adaptation that lead to evolution. It’s just that there’s not enough time for anything to evolve into anything else because the earth is only 6000 years old.
The claim that the earth is only 6k years old is absurd on it’s face (tree rings date the oldest trees at 10k or 15k or so, to say nothing of ice cores, geologic layering, and radiometric dating, not to mention the fact that fossilization is an exceptionally slow process yet we find fossils freaking everywhere) But there -are- plenty of people who claim that the adaptation involved in the flu shot and the adaptation involved in “macroevolution” are wholly different things, and that the latter is impossible regardless of the time involved. Joyce, clearly, from the previous conversation, had never thought to connect the two. Thereby it was a devastating blow to her deliberate ignorance.
Christian Science may (or may not) oppose it, but Joyce science does. This comic is not about the abstract christian, it’s about this specific christian. Sure, she happens to share views with 46% of Americans (most of those being some sort of christian), but this is not a specific commentary about the specific tweaks of this sect or that sect, unless you’re talking about Joyce’s sect.
Welp, to be fair: Most versions of Christian Science fully disagree with the 6000 years count. And do support evolution.
No, it’s utterly moronic to claim it is not.
If the flu virus didn’t evolve, you could get one flu shot, and be set for life, because there would be one variety and it would never change.
Hell, you probably wouldn’t need the shot in the first place, if you had a healthy immune system for most of your life.
You need an annual flu shot because new flu strains appear.
You do not need to explain how those new strains appear to accept that they exist, and that you need a new vaccination to use against them.
“It’s pretty ridiculous to claim that flu shots are based on evolution, because innoculation predates Darwin.”
A few problems.
1) Darwin did not *invent* evolution. He wasn’t even the first person to notice its effects. As such, evolution is perfectly capable of having impacted things that existed before Darwin. I mean, this logic is so absurd that I assume it isn’t really what you meant to say.
2) The history of ANNUAL vaccinations and the idea that one shot didn’t render you immune forever does not go back nearly as far as the history of vaccinations themselves.
3) People used to explain how medicine worked and why in very different terms, but that doesn’t mean anyone should claim illness is caused by your humors being out of balance and expect to be taken seriously. Yes, that was once a theory; and yes, in the most ABSTRACT sense, it is still correct (just like the early idea of a perfectly spherical Earth is ABSTRACTLY correct), because science is rarely a process of disregarding ideas completely and more often a process of fine-tuning ideas with new information; but that absolutely does not mean that it’s perfectly valid to only accept the “humors” theory of biology. If you do that, you are being ignorant, and people will call you out on that.
TL;DR: Yes, evolution IS at work here, and has been since forever. That people didn’t know what to call the process doesn’t mean it wasn’t ALWAYS at work, and certainly can’t be used to provide an acceptable excuse for Christians or any other evolution denier to claim it ISN’T at work.
That’s like saying lightning has only been electricity since Benjamin Franklin flew a kite or that gravity has only existed since Newton saw and apple drop. Darwin didn’t wave his fingers and make evolution, he just saw it happening.
And wrote it down.
Joyce is one of those hardcore Christians who shuns all things science. If you look real carefully at certain strips, this becomes evident. It’s easy to miss, though.
[/s]
Not all of science actually. Very specific parts in fact, while accepting others. Which of course created quite a bit of a paradox here.
It only asserts that Joyce cannot reconcile science with her faith, not that nobody can. Also, most of the time Joyce has the luxury of being able to ignore the implications of rejecting proven science, up till the flu shot.
did you even read the previous two strips
Oh man, I got ninja’d like whoa.
I wouldn’t even call that ninja’d. You got brigade’d
Damn you, Haruhi!
“Just now that I won’t be responding not because you have shaken my faith, but rather because I know that nothing I can say will shake yours. =P”
Look up the word “faith”, and stop being a dick. As fun as trolling the rational may be, believing in thing that have been proven true by mountains of evidence is not “faith”. Not all beliefs are baseless. Just yours.
(And as for things not coexisting with God, it would depend on what God you’re talking about. Deist? Christian? Flat-earth christian? Precognitive? So many possibilities, no consistent properties, not consistent answers. So no disproofs for you.)
Okay, I reread his statement thrice now. And…
What he’s saying is that science and believing in God do not simply work, they work amazingly well. And that he won’t be answering to people trying to convince him that you cannot accept evolution and still believe in God. Or the world not being flat and still believe in God. Or whatever.
And you say that his believe that science and faith work perfectly together is absolutely baseless.
Did I get this about right or…
slightly confused here
The day is over and nobody will read this, but for all his vaunted claims that science totally never disagrees with God, he immediately turned around and leapt to the defensive. He refuses to listen to counterarguments, because of course none of our arguments will be any good anyway.
Translation: “I know I’m full of shit, but I don’t intend to listen to you telling me so.”
And then he dropped the bomb: he called acceptance of science faith.
This is a standard false equivalence that bullshit peddlers do: they try to pretend that nobody else’s claims are any better than their flimsy codswallop. By lowering facts down to the level of mythology, they hope to persuade people that their mythology has equal credibility and deserves equal respect. When, of course, it doesn’t.
There is of course a chance that he has swallowed the notion that religions are as credible as science, and that he isn’t deliberately trying to be insulting and provoke an angry response from people who don’t like being compared to bullshit pedders. And then you reread that last paragraph of his, and it becomes clear that regardless of his beliefs, his tone is no accident.
Learn to troll better. Clicking back twice shows your point to be invalid, no-one else has to try.
“So, are we just talking about the science of flu shots that Joyce doesn’t believe in? Or is this comic trying to make the assertion that Christians can’t possibly believe anything that comes from science? I’m sure there are some hardcore Christians who shun all things science, but they would be far from the majority.”
Viruses are generally accepted as evolving and that evolution is considered a specific example of more general Darwinian evolution.
However, to many in the public, “evolution” means “evolution of man” and Joyce specially states they “adapt”, which in the case is a form of evolution and her comment how that is different than becoming a pig implies that her intent is to differentiation viral evolution from the origin of higher mammals.
So, absent just assuming the worst about Joyce, all you can really say about her is that she is saying that the evolution of virus doesn’t mean she has to believe that human were formed by evolution. While I’m sure many will call that absurd, it is a position that I’ve heard well informed people defend.
I’m a scientist who believes in evolution, but respects his relatives who don’t, and who is tired of the “total war” attitude of some on “both sides”. You point was, claims to the contrary, IMO, not withstanding cogent.
You’re entitled to your own beliefs, not your own facts. Certainty of a scientific theory isn’t the same as certainty of a religious belief.
This.
I like how you can assert that you’re not going to even deign to respond to anything that anyone else says, but somehow it’s everyone who doesn’t agree with you that’s closed-minded.
And by “like” I mean “weep bitter tears of despair at the state of public discourse”.
Because if you admit you’re a B-word, it makes it perfectly okay to be one.
Also, I am another B-word and BWA-HA-HA-HA!!
B-words be trippin’.
Well thank god for cognitive dissonance cause when you dont take vaccines you actually put other people at risk of infection as well.
Statistically speaking, yes. But not in an absolute way. So, if you don’t take a flu shot but you cut your physical human interactions to near zero, (never touching people, avoiding elevators and public transit, putting gloves when you go to the grocery or touch any public surface, etc etc.) during the flu season, then you’re not putting other people at risk, in a statistical sense.
Remember not to breathe in anyone else’s presence either.
At the same time, though, there are other vaccinations that are going to work far better if they’re widespread, such as measles, pertussis, polio…all the really, really nasty viruses that you don’t wanna contract EVER.
Me, I just tend to believe in supporting the whole herd immunity thing, but I’m also a nursing student, so…
You’d need to either be Chuck Noland or wear some sort of quarantine suit 24/7 with nobody handling your old oxygen tanks EVER and going in to that environment AFTER completely killing any and all bacteria and viruses etc in your system (probably by radiation) in order to never infect anyone ever.
Awww, she’s gonna need someone to foo foo her boo boo. :’)
ah god dangit someone beat me to the gravatar.
well played sir, well played.
I know, my only regret in life will be that I didn’t think of it first.
What page is your gravatar from?
My gravatar is from Questionable Content, by Jeph Jaques. and im bad at making words hyperlinks in html, so you get a regular one. http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1
the art and story get alot better as the comic goes on.
Tried it a few times, never found out what code to use for hyperlinks too.
Even asked about it in the comments once. Didn’t get an answer, unfortunately.
[a href=”http://SOMEURLHERE.com/”]Linked text[/a]
Now replace the square brackets with their angle cousins. (The code is also provided beneath the comment box.)
Ah… That’s what the [a] one is for.
Yeah, I’ll admit it. I’m not really a code monkey. Thanks a lot!
You are welcome! It is literally my job.
TBH, I don’t remember what the “a” stands for. I remember eyeballing it skeptically in my younger days, and I think it doesn’t help that there is also an element NAMED LINK, which is used for something completely irrelevant. 😉
Kwahahahah!!!!! XD
Love it. I have never seen Sarah so tickled. Gotta feel for Joyce with those huge sad eyes, I’m not made out of stone. But, I have to side with Sarah’s logic. It’s funny.
They still use syringes to deliver the flu shot? Guess I’m used to the military’s nasal injectors (and the 5 minute runny nose they give).
I want to feel bad for Joyce, but…I can’t.
Boo-hoo. I like how Joyce’s top matches her expression. Liked her eyes, too.
I think it’d be funnier to have panel three (with no text) enlarged, so it looks like sarah’s just laughing at joyce being hurt
The joy of it is that Sara is laughing at Joyce getting experiencing pain. On multiple levels.
I have two many verbals in that sentence. Pretend one doesn’t exist.
Ok, so I’m looking at the nurse’s chin and hair and now I can’t decide if the nurse is supposed to be male or female.
I see boob.
You’re right. I suppose I should have paid more attention.
I’m experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance over free flu shots for healthy students and everything that I thought I knew about American health care…
Big colleges have a vested interest in not having half their student body miss class due to a flu epidemic. They practically have to beg students to get off their asses and go to the clinic.
Those colleges probably pay for it out of pocket, though.
Joyce should be worried that her eyes are reacting that badly to the flu shot. She’s… she’s not going to die, is she?
well, you made joyce dangerously adorable this comic, willis
I think I’m missing something… how is this caused by cognitive dissonance? She only has one belief, that evolution doesn’t exist. Her getting a shot doesn’t really have to do with a subconsciously hidden belief in evolution, just acknowledgement that there are different types of flu and the shot she got last year isn’t for the same flu she got a shot for this year. I’ve gone over my own disbelief in evolution, but I’m still perfectly comfortable making a distinction between a Pug and a Retriever.
Because the shot isn’t just against a different type of flu, it’s against a NEW type of flu. That has evolved. Because viruses do that.
Joyce taking regular flu shots despite not believing in evolution is like someone protecting their seaside property against the tides despite not believing in the gravitational pull of the moon.
Ah, aha. Had to go back and read it. Makes more sense now. Though I’m still not sure that’s necessarily cognitive dissonance. Even having two conflicting beliefs, only one belief is causing her to get the shot. I’m still amused by the line, I am just also probably over-thinking it.
Where are the new flu strains suddenly coming from in a belief system that justifies the requirement of yearly flu shots while disbelieving in the existence of evolution without any cognitive dissonance?
(Though, pointing it out, pugs and retrievers are both the same species. Yet, the rapid and historically documented creation of such hugely different dog breeds via selective breeding is very much an example of evolution in action.)
The knowledge of evolution being exhibited in the comics so far is too simplified for any wiggle room. After all, Joyce has clearly exhibited that she’ll in no way advocate the species-forming principles of macroevolution, but that she’s okay with something proven over and over again in recorded human history– the creation of new breeds and changed appearances without speciation, microevolution.
One of my Seventh-Day Adventist friends (with whom I don’t really discuss such controversial topics because neither will agree with the other and we’ll both end up pissed) is perfectly okay with microevolution, although she discredits the more well-known theories. :p
Basically, it’s okay for a creationist to agree with genetic drift, mutations, and the whole shebang– so long as it doesn’t involve A. pithecus and H. hedelbergenesis conspiring in a dastardly plot to create us flesh-monkeys.
(And you know what? I’m okay with that. Where biochemical sciences are right now, we don’t have too many practical applications for macroevolution; it is, much like the study of prehistoric Ireland, mostly for the desire to accumulate knowledge. However, microevolution has numerous, undeniable regular applications and medical science would no be where it is today without it. I would be deeply aggravated by a seemingly reasonable person whose wholesale rejection of evolution covered that as well).
*not be
ALL THAT ASIDE, I love science, I love Dina, and I love Dumbing of Age’s consistent quality. Great stuff! 😀
I’m a little disturbed by the idea that truth is only important if it has current scientific applications. (Aside from letting us know we have to keep making new flu shots and avoiding plagues, but who cares about plagues.) You might as well say that because these people are ignorant and/or idiots, they’ll never be useful as scientists anyway, so who cares what they believe? They can’t do anything more consequential than get themselves onto a school board.
Disagreement. I’m not provoked by such willing disbelief because evolution itself is, still called the Theory of Evolution, in its formal guise. It is an overwhelmingly supported, overwhelmingly expanding subject, but it is theoretical. Microevolution is not theoretical. Microevolution can be proven in a clinical setting with extreme ease. What I’m saying isn’t that truth is negligible– far be it from me to believe that– but that when push comes to shove, I won’t bother a creationist with macroevolution (if they’ll not sully the waters with unproven, difficult to belief creationist “theory”) provided that they can acknowledge the veracity of some more minor forms of evolution.
As for education– creationism can’t be proven or scientifically supported. Macroevolution can be. Any creationist who believes that Einstein was on to something with relativity or that there’s a fundamental limit to the precision that can be obtained in measuring the physical state of a quantum system– any creationist who believes these things, and I sure as hell know a lot of them who do the very minute they learn them in high school– any such creationist cannot reasonably argue against the instruction of macroevolution, because those are also theories with huge amounts of experimental support. We could argue the nuances, but if you’ll agree with basic physical and chemical theories, then regardless of religious beliefs, it’s illogical to not at least learn basic biological theories as well.
Oh my god, I just realized that I’m that cantankerous forum troll who posts over-long comments expounding on a narrow topic even though no one’s arguing with me.
I’m going to fix this thing by the next comic. :/
Hey, I’m arguing with you! And that’s not a knife; this is an over-long comment!
“Disagreement. I’m not provoked by such willing disbelief because evolution itself is, still called the Theory of Evolution, in its formal guise. It is an overwhelmingly supported, overwhelmingly expanding subject, but it is theoretical. Microevolution is not theoretical.”
You’ve fallen into a TRAP! One that scientists deliberately set to trip you up so they can point and laugh when you get it wrong. Laugh, I tell you! And point!
When scientists say “theory” they don’t mean ‘theory’. They mean ‘explanation’. And no matter how awesome or how solidly confirmed that theory might get, it will always remain a theory, because that just means ‘explanation’.
There’s a common misconception that when a theory gets sufficiently proven it turns into something else. This is because scientists made people think that! Sitting back in their underground lairs, steepling their fingers and twirling their fez tassels they decided to bait the trap by making something called a “law”! Surely they’ll think that a proven theory becomes a law! Bwahaha! Minion, bring me my publishing laser!
In scienceese, a law is not a proven theory, of course. “Law” means ‘equation’. It is used to calculate an outcome, not to explain it. And yes, they pretty much all have numbers and variables in them, and the ones that don’t still predict a specific result. Because that’s what they’re for. Predicting or calculating, not explaining.
So yeah. Microevolution is indeed “theoretical”, because what else would it be? Of course, to a scientist, there isn’t even a difference between macroevolution and microevolution, because they’re exactly the same thing. It’s like the difference between a boat and a ship, except that scientists never got around pretending that there was some point to vaguely pretending that size made a difference.
No, it was creationists that set that trap. They’re trying to pretend that 0.999~ is different than 1. And they’ve snowed a lot of people. But the fact is there’s really no difference. And you don’t get one without the other.
Point of order – the ‘idea’ that microevolution and macroevolution are two different things as opposed to the exact same process observed over different lengths of time is a completely false one. Almost the same thing as saying that somehow ‘hours’ are a totally different concept from ‘millenium’ and sure I believe in hours but idk man, this ‘millenium’ concept seems really tricky and fake. I mean, have you lived a thousand years?
This is yet another example of (Young Earth) creationists using scientific terms that mean something to mean something else that is completely bullshit and then use it to ‘justify’ their ‘science’.
Also the USofA is about the only country in the world where evolution is considered a doubtful one-of-many possibilities and taight side by side with creationism in national/approved contexts.
Retrievers existed last year too, though.
Lol, yours was much easier to reply to, so I will. Of course retrievers existed last year, but this year the CDC figured all the retrievers would stay in Japan and the Pugs were the ones bent on world domination. After all, there are so many strains of the flu, it’s pretty much an educated guessing game as to which ones to produce a shot for each year. The way I understand it, the “flu” could not change for a good long while and we would still be susceptible to it even if we got a different shot for a different strain every year. *shrug* Maybe I’ve misunderstood.
You have. The CDC has no reason to withhold vaccines for a disease unless they believe it’s universally dead. One thing that diseases are great at doing is spreading, even from a single contagious individual, and thus we like to cover our bases by cultivating herd immunity. And there’s little harm in spamming the bases by immunizing against everything.
So yeah – if the CDC knew about it last year, they would have immunized against it last year. The problem is that new strains keep popping up. Gee, I wonder how that happens…
I’m pretty certain the CDC does not spam you with a vaccine for every strain of flu on the planet. They vaccinate you for the strain you are most likely to contract. And yes, the flu virus changes and gains and loses immunities and weaknesses over the years, but so far as I can tell, it’s still classified as “Flu” no matter how many changes it undergoes.
According to Wikipedia: “Due to the high mutation rate of the virus, a particular influenza vaccine usually confers protection for no more than a few years. Every year, the World Health Organization predicts which strains of the virus are most likely to be circulating in the next year (see Historical annual reformulations of the influenza vaccine), allowing pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines that will provide the best immunity against these strains. The vaccine is reformulated each season for a few specific flu strains but does not include all the strains active in the world during that season. It takes about six months for the manufacturers to formulate and produce the millions of doses required to deal with the seasonal epidemics; occasionally, a new or overlooked strain becomes prominent during that time.
.The first convincing record of an influenza pandemic was of an outbreak in 1580.”
In other words, even though the flu “evolves” many times a year, supposedly to the point that I’ve heard countless times “proves” evolution… it’s still distinctly recognizable over 400 years later.
“It’s still classified as flu”
Yes, it doesn’t for example turn into a pig.
I’m thinking Joyce is not the only one who doesn’t understand how evolution works.
Possibly. I had a biology instructor who was fired for the very infraction of throwing out the entire semester’s curriculum in order to shove evolution down my throat. (I looked him in the eyes when I turned in my final blank. And I essentially gave my parents the middle finger for telling me to appease him no matter what he was trying to get out of me. He was fired without my involvement.) I don’t mean offense to the evolution crowd on this forum, but I will admit that I take my position a little more antagonistically as I normally would. In any case, even growing up in what I have come to realize was a very liberal Christian church, the leap from anything being both ancestor to plant and animal is questionable. If I am completely honest, I am primarily what is being labeled here as a “New Earther.” though it really doesn’t matter if God used evolution to achieve the same result or not. In this particular case, I’m just saying that it doesn’t matter if the flu changes each year or not (it does, I’m not arguing that it doesn’t, just that hypothetically, if it “decided” not to), because different strains are greater or lesser threats to public safety each year. But if you want to understand why Joyce will not accept evolution, you only have to look as far as some of the most liberal of us in the non-evolution camp. And just from the comments in this forum alone, I’m not surprised that many Christian’s label science as a whole ungodly (as misguided as that is) when people here say that a Christian is less of a scientist just because they have beliefs that disagree with the evolutionary belief.
I’m trying to put this in terms that can be understood. Why do you expect Christianity to learn your “correct” definition of a small section of science when they are demeaned for not believing before they learn what it is? No, I don’t know the small, distinct points of evolutionary theory. Before I was “taught” evolutionary theory, I was told that I was stupid for believing creationism. In order to learn the basics of evolutionary theory, I was required to believe BY FAITH that creationism was wrong and evil, and if I did so, then I had a scientific mind capable of appreciating evolution. Once anyone is told something that ridiculous, they know to hang onto something no matter what contradicts it. Why? Because people will lie and misrepresent and expect silly things of you no matter what you do and know. So you better hold onto what you’ve already been taught. No matter what you are taught from here on, hold onto what you knew before because it is under attack, whether for good reason or for bad. No, I don’t believe in evolution to the point of all life on earth having a common ancestor. I don’t imagine the flu turning into pigs, but I also don’t expect 10 billion generations of the flu to be as easy to recognize and plan for as the last if 10 billion if generations of primates was supposed to be allowed to diverge into both apes and humans. I know what could be said to me to change my mind, but as yet, I have not had someone willing to come on equal ground, so I will hold onto my “meh” attitude and simply keep fighting members of both sides from my middle position.
I’m… very sorry you had a science teacher who thought you needed to understand science?
1) “beliefs that disagree with the evolutionary belief”
Again, there is no such thing as BELIEF in evolution.
The reason why the Christian scientist is a bad scientist is because he allows himself to have beliefs that can not be threatened or augmented or even changed by new information. That those beliefs are religious is irrelevant — he’s being a bad scientist because his mind is fundamentally closed to new ideas, and that will always stunt his ability to use tools that RELY on at least an attempt to be unbiased.
Does this make sense to you? It’s not being religious that is problematic, it’s being too attached to a particular unverifiable fact, attached enough that you will not just doubt but ignore solid evidence to the contrary. Anyone can fall into this trap, but for a Christian scientist it is practically required.
2) Tone policing is not okay. Yes, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but oppressed minorities — all non-Christians count, in modern America! — should not be told to express their pain more politely because otherwise they will hurt their oppressors’ feelings and then it will be THEIR fault that their oppressor hasn’t learned anything.
3) Creationism wouldn’t be so “bad” if it weren’t causing material disenfranchisement. Again, Christians are an oppressive majority in this country, with their “wars on Christmas” and their “no Atheist or Muslim should be allowed religious freedom and they’re also probably all evil” and their “gay sex should be criminal and gay marriage should be illegal or at least suitably marginalized”.
4) Christianity is not under any real attack. Keeping church and state separate is not the same thing as attacking or undermining religion. Neither is teaching children verifiable facts. Doesn’t God out and out say he won’t ever prove he exists to man because he wants your faith? How hard is it to explain that to kids who are taught about evolution, instead of pretending we can’t prove evolution exists and that everyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or an agent of the Devil?
No one cares what your PERSONAL beliefs are. Your first amendment right and the establishment clause and numerous other laws across the country protect your right to spiritual beliefs. They just don’t protect you from ever being exposed to ideas that disagree with yours.
5) I’m not an expert on evolution and it’s been years since my last college class, so if you really want an explanation for how evolution works and why the flu virus should still be recognizable, Google will help you.
0. He wasn’t trying to make me learn science, he threw out the science he was supposed to teach us in favor of spending the entire semester on his favorite subject. Even had I aced that class, I would not have learned science.
1. “Before I was “taught” evolutionary theory, I was told that I was stupid for believing creationism. In order to learn the basics of evolutionary theory, I was required to believe BY FAITH that creationism was wrong and evil.” In other words, before any facts or research or evidence is presented, one is expected to believe it or be considered stupid. This is the main thing that bugs me. The suggestion is that science clearly and without question proves there is no God. And that any scientist who sees God’s existence confirmed in science and not refuted is a bad scientist. So anything that threatens or attempts to change the belief that there is no God is equally unassailable. I’d agree that to be a good scientist, one should be able to look at what they learn and research without bias. For one, that is as impossible as it is for a journalist, but for two, that should be equally true for an atheist as a Christian.
3. Creationism isn’t causing these views. People who have these views often are creationists, but a creationist does not automatically hold any political stance for being a creationist.
4. I never claimed an attack on Christianity. I don’t believe there is an attack on Christianity (I think Christianity is destroying itself more than anything). No, God doesn’t say that he wont prove he exists. The early church fathers talked with and to God personally and he repeatedly outright shows himself over and over in the Bible. Biblically, faith is something very different than simple belief. But since actual faith is so difficult, belief is usually substituted to make the offering plate happy.
0. Sometimes when you teach a class that is unexpectedly remedial in an important part of science…
No, seriously. You are not really going to garner any sympathy from me here. I’m feeling bad for your teacher.
1. No, science does not “prove” there is no God. Any scientist or even PHILOSOPHER worth their salt will tell you how difficult it is to prove a negative, and science is not really too concerned with proving the nonexistence of supernatural forces. What science has done is found no evidence for the existence of God, and an explanation for the formation of the universe that does not require God. There is a difference.
So, no, atheism is NOT a requirement for being a good scientist. I would also argue that atheism is not always a BELIEF that there is no God; it’s actually the LACK of belief in God, which is not the same thing.
(Suppose I’ve never seen carrots before, or any evidence that carrots exist: I live in a carrotless country. When confronted by the existence of carrots outside my country, I will realize that carrots exist, and incorporate that knowledge into my daily life. If I’d had an actual BELIEF concerning the nonexistence of carrots, I might try to pretend the carrots were something else, like an unusually thick and orange-y piece of asparagus, but since I only had a lack of belief in their existence, I am not even really “wrong” about anything, just more informed now than I was before.)
The reason why I am still not really responding to your specific account of being “forced” to “blindly” reject Creationism is because I am… skeptical, to put it mildly. Did you run into some bad scientists who don’t understand the basic principles of their own field? It’s certainly possible. I can also imagine some rushed teachers who just wanted to put aside the question of God because I can’t even imagine how exhausting it would be to teach astronomy in a class full of students who raise their hands at every question and say, “Because God wanted it that way.”
I’m reminded of a philosophy class I took in college, where our professor told us at the outset that “Because God said so” didn’t have a place in our debates.
I can easily imagine a religious student being offended by that and deciding the teacher was telling them that being religion was wrong, but the teacher went on to explain that “Because God said so” can answer literally every possible question, and we are here for a deeper discussion than that, so she wanted us to know right at the outset that when we were writing essays or debating each other in mock-debates, simple all-encompassing undefeatable answers were kind of like cheating.
You were perfectly allowed to believe in God in her class, but she still needed you to pretend at least for the semester that you weren’t allowed to use that belief as an explanation for, say, the existence of morality.
(And she certainly had a point; the few philosophers that assumed the existence of God in their work tended to write much simpler theses; Descartes’s own proof of God’s existence satisfied him, but it committed some basic logical fallacies that made it a weak argument, because he arrived at the question with the answer already in mind and failed to anticipate, let alone answer, many basic arguments that could be easily levied against his thesis.)
So here we are, where I can perfectly imagine a scenario where you felt your beliefs were under attack but they weren’t.
3. Only because you don’t have to interpret the Bible literally to be a Creationist. But we are not just talking about Creationists in general, we are talking about the evolution-deniers, the 46% of America that believes God created man and all the animals as we are today. If you are interpreting the Bible that literally, then you also think homosexuality is a sin, and you are not really in favor of giving people rights for their “sinning”.
Hence material disenfranchisement.
So, I could have phrased it more clearly, because the literal interpretation is more the root of the problem than the Creationism. Happy?
4. If you never claimed an attack on Christianity, what was with the way you described events in point 1, just now? Let alone your earlier text, which contained a lot of [I guess, theoretical?] Christian response to [I guess, theoretical?] attacks, like clinging all the harder to their beliefs?
Anyway.
“And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6)
“Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'” (John 20:29)
The only people who ever talked to God directly were people in the Old Testament; talking to Jesus hardly counts. And even then, they heard voices, or saw a bush spontaneously combust, neither of which is clinching proof they could even use to convince themselves, let alone other people.
I’m not a Biblical scholar or a Christian, but I did read the thing. God seemed patently uninterested in convincing anyone of his existence unless he needed them to do something for him, and even then he [deliberately, I would argue] gave them no proof they could ever take to another living soul.
TL;DR: You don’t have to reject God to be a good scientist, but you do have to be able to keep your mind open to explanations other than God while you are working. You have to be able to maintain a certain emotional detachment and not let your personal religious beliefs get between you and the truth of any scenario. This is perfectly possible in the “all science is true, and God created science” scenario, where the Bible is metaphorical and the six days refer to untold eons of time, or where you’re willing to accept that the people who wrote the Bible were human and may have been divinely inspired yet still got some of the message wrong, like a game of telephone.
And, becoming distinctly less a short summary with every word, I must add that it CAN still cause problems. The Einstein example is the most famous, but by no means the only such one. He was a brilliant man who embraced much of science, but he still believed that “God does not play dice with the universe,” and that conviction caused him to reject solid evidence and left his theories incomplete.
I’m not telling you that being a Christian scientist means being a bad scientist to be mean, or because I think all religious people are stupid. I’m telling you it because it is historically true. Because one of the most brilliant men EVER fell victim to it. How arrogant must others be to assume it would never be true of them?
I empathize with Joyce, so I can’t relate to Sarah laughing at all.
meanwhile, this whole week I’ve been living vicariously thru Sarah 100%!!! 🙂
Man, those eyes. Was Joyce just injected with puppy DNA?
(morbo) EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! (/morbo)
Actually, for many bacteria it does!
Better yet, they don’t even need to be injected, they just absorb it. Some of those bacteria are even inside you serving esential roles in your body. Effectively they are a part of you. And, they swap DNA among themselves and with other bacteria as it passes through. It’s happening inside all of us right now! So.. I guess it does work that way for humans… in a way.
Bacteria are such sluts.
Aargh, I did it again. Got to learn to proofread before posting.
But not that quickly or that easily. An injection of puppy saliva is just going to make your arm hurt or make you sick.
BUT SPIDERMAN.
Wow
I went to a religious high school myself. They taught that things like the flu virus changing every year was micro-evolution, small changes within a species. They taught that large changes such as becoming a new species was macro-evolution. They taught that micro-evolution was real and macro-evolution was so improbable as to be impossible.
They backed this up with a very incomplete understanding of evolution based entirely on single point mutations and the percentage of those that either get ‘repaired’ by the cell and not passed on or are harmful rather than benificial. They did not talk about jumping genes, viral remnants or anything else that drives evolution.
I’m surprised that nobody has brought this up. I thought it was common knowledge that this is what many young earth creationists believe. Of course many evolution skeptics don’t go to shcools that teach them about this stuff and genrally just don’t think about it. I’m not saying they all have this micro vs macro response ready to hand out when confronted like Joyce was. The comic is very realistic. I’m just surprised not to see micro vs macro in the comments anywhere.
It was brought up and argued angrily in the comments the last time Dina and Joyce clashed about the subject, if I recall.
Oh, sorry. Carry on then!
I always looked at the whole Micro- and Macro- thing in terms of someone thinking that the apple falling on Newton’s head was Micro-gravity and the Moon staying in orbit around the Earth is Macro-gravity.
And now you can just scroll up a bit.
I’ve never been offered a sucker after getting my flu shot. Maybe that makes me the sucker.
Maybe you should try crying? I’d offer Joyce a stuffed animal too, if I had one.
When we give blood over here in the UK, we get our choice of snacks and juice boxes/water bottles afterwards. It’s brill. That’s the NHS for ya…
True, and I believe it’s standard to offer a snack and drink of some form after giving blood on this side of the Atlantic, too. But I’m pretty sure they stop offering lollipops for flu shots in college. If not, I’m clearly missing out.
I think I got a sweet bandage on it, but definitely no lollipop.
(and yes, snacks and juice are pretty standard for blood donations; don’t really want someone that just did something nice to pass out on you)
And it makes all the people who are still standing in line waiting to donate nervous.
D’awwwwwwww! Those eyes! I’m getting such a freakin’ overdose of cuteness, I can’t even gloat over the defeat of sectarian obscurantism; I want to hug Joyce and tell her it’s gonna be all right! TwT
There is a difference between believing “organism can adapt to their environment”, and believing “humans’ 10^7 ancestors were apes”.
There is a difference between “not believing in ‘science'” (as if all of science were some kind of belief system, like believing in magic or something), vs “not believing the universe was spontaneously auto-created in a ‘big bang'”
(A theory which, ironically, goes against existing accepted scientific “laws”, such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy of the universe always heads towards decreasing.)
oh my god
I didn’t realize any Creationists still pushed forward that old “big bang/evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics” thing. I thought the folks who did that got laughed off the planet decades ago.
because because
here’s the really really simple thing about that
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? It says nothing about “the energy of the UNIVERSE always heading towards decreasing.” There are two key words you’ve replaced with different words — it’s about a CLOSED SYSTEM and ENTROPY. In a CLOSED SYSTEM, the amount of ENTROPY cannot decrease. It is NOT “the energy of the universe always decreases.”
And for years some folks used this misinterpretation of what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics really is until they got laughed at too much. (I think some Creationist sites now actively warn against using it.) They thought they’d found this sweet loophole that disproved everything, and especially thought it disproved evolution. Because, well, yeah, if Earth were a closed system, the amount of energy could never increase and this place would be a dead husk in 4 billion years instead of life.
but
you see
earth is not a closed system
there’s this thing called the SUN
And as for the universe? Read this. If the Big Bang were actually in conflict with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, nobody’d ever have started putting stock in it. It’s a no-starter.
But, yes, I will give you this: If the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics were this other thing you made up that’s not actually the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then YEAH I GUESS YOU’RE RIGHT, and that all of modern science is false based on a rule they themselves made up and somehow ignore all the time it’s so incredibly obvious.
so much better at science than scientists
amazingly precious
If I could marry a comment, I would propose to this one.
Gah, a-buh, hehehehehehe. Oh my that touched a nerve.
oh my willis, pouring on the sarcasm a little thick today eh? xD
Adapting to an environment is a form of evolution…and humans just share a common ancestor with modern primates (especially the apes). Most people who bring up the second law can’t explain the first or third…there’s even a zeroth law.
The big bang is part of physics, evolution is biology. How is it less likely than a deity creating it all? Who says God didn’t create the big bang?
Actually, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy always increases, not that it helps your argument.
Humans did not evolve from apes.
Humans evolved from ape-like ancestors.
Apes evolved from human-like ancestors.
Which were both the same ancestor.
They’re cousins. Not grandparents. Why is this so hard for people to grock?
Sometimes I think apes are STILL evolving from human-like ancestors. Human like ancestors that think they are actual humans.
Yeah, I don’t know. I have very few good things to say about Bible literalist kooks and all, but when it gets down to the individual people, kids that are raised that way and just don’t know any better, I just feel sorry for them. Joyce does need to expand her horizons and become educated about science and the proper relationship between faith and science, but watching her be the comic’s butt monkey kind of makes me uncomfortable.
I know I wouldn’t be as…. brutal? with her if I was the one discussing it, but the characters aren’t me. With Dina, it’s not really making fun of her, it’s just totally incomprehensible that someone could honestly think evolution was ‘made up’, and more specifically, still get yearly flu shots. With Sarah, well, let’s be honest, she’s kind of a ‘B word’; that doesn’t mean she doesn’t want Joyce to grow (in fact, she once commented on being sorry that Joyce probably would lose her naivete eventually); but she also appreciates that what Joyce is going through is kind of a ridiculous situation.
(At least, that’s how I interpret it, but I’m not The Willis, so who knows?)
She’s not the only one that’s amused. HAHAHA
Wait a minute. Why is Joyce the only person who has blue eyes that are one solid, consistent color?
Her eyes never evolved to having pupils.
I wonder if anybody (in comic) will bring up how evolution-creationism is actually a spectrum.
…I once found a really good chart but this link is the best I can find now.
http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum
Probably not, because it’s not a spectrum. 3/4 of that is all just creationism, with different looney cosmologies and/or theologies that have no real relation to the question. There are really only three options: evolution, creationism, and “intelligent design”. (Or I like to call it, “god goes to huge massive ludicrous insane lengths to pretend not to have created anything, apparently just to dick with people design”.) This is not a continuum, this is reality, mythology, and bait-and-switch.
I got tired counting all the questions you begged, so I’m just calling you an anti-religion snob instead.
But thank you, person with a Rachel avatar. That article was pretty enlightening. In my opinion, everyone Day-Age and down is cool, but everyone else gets a good ol’ eye-roll.
Call me hard to distract, instead. The 35 flavors of creationism differ on a variety of aspects, but these differences have nothing to do with the actual question: “How did all these different critters (and us) come into existence, at a species level?” (At an individual level we look for mommies.)
When asking that question, “They were all poofed into existence as they are!” and “They were all poofed into existence as they are, and the earth is also flat!” are the same answer.
In that list, there were only three different answers. Or there were an infinite number of answers, because between “evolution, and it’s been X minutes since the big bang” and “evolution, and it’s been X+1 minutes since the big bang”, between those there are an infinite number of ‘different’ theories of evolution. Because irrelevent differences matter!
Sorry, but I’ve got to call bull on that statement. There is way more to this than just “one out of three, point!”
There is no such thing as the creationism. There’s different versions, some of which quite fundamentally differ from each other. Throwing them all together is nearly as ignorant as a fanatical Flat Earther and does not help the discussion.
It’s a generalization based on “supernatural forces created the earth”. If you call all religions fairy tales, the fine details of whether we were created in six days with a garden of Eden or were ejaculated into existence by a pair of incestuous siblings (that’s how Japan was formed!) don’t matter. They are all explanations for life on this planet that neither rely on not incoporate the evidence we have here on Earth.
Didn’t click the link, but the whole “microevolution” concept is a meaningless invention.
You can have your beliefs! You are welcome to them, provided they don’t involve me going to Hell for the way I was born. (It’s hard for me to be a neutral party there, because your beliefs are no longer just personal: they are being used in the material world to deny me rights.) But you cannot and should not expect your personal beliefs to be seen as equal to the best information we have about objective reality. When you start saying, “I have faith in God *and* in science, I just reject a couple of well-proven scientific theories because they conflict with God,” expect eyerolling.
Because scientists don’t have faith in science, and because you have just demonstrated that you can only ever be a bad scientist, because you are letting your preconceived notions overrule things uncritically.
This is not meant to be an insult — it’s just a fact. Einstein was a brilliant man, but his conviction that “God does not play dice with the universe” held him back and caused him to go to his grave still denying fundamental information that left his theories flawed and incomplete.
The Judeo-Christian God is by his own admission a jealous god. He doesn’t want you to ever let anything else be more important to you than him. And believing in him as the ultimate answer will always mean that you are attempting to make the facts for your hypothesis, rather than looking for a hypothesis to fit the facts.
Obviously some of that comment is directed at people further up the tree than you. I got off on a big ole tangent.
I noticed. Because if you followed my comments, I do think that species are evolving and interchanging. That the Earth was created the way modern astronomy/geology says, the universe most likely as well (though granted: There is a bit more room for speculation there.) I’m not really sure how the first life came to be and how it went from there to the first diversity. But then I’m hardly alone in that. 😉
In short: If there’s enough, scientifically sound proof for something, I will accept it as truth. Unless proven otherwise by new data of course.
I do also believe that there is a God behind it all, who at least got things started. Now that I read more into the matter, that actually means I already qualify as a creationist. Huh. Never even considered that, truth be told. But it shows that there is more to the whole thing than often presumed.
And no, I don’t believe the bible to be inerrant. Heck, there are clear inconsistencies in it. It still has value though. Some good things can be taken from it. If you use your common sense that is.
I have extremely mixed feelings about the Bible, obviously. 😉 But yeah, sorry for any venom that got on you, I’ve enjoyed conversing with you and reading your comments elsewhere.
If you had bothered to follow my link you would have seen my point wasn’t microevolution.
Most Christians (its the official stance of the Catholic Church and most mainline Protestant churches) believe in Theistic Evolutionsim. Theistic evolution is at its simplest “all science is true and God created science”. How much God intervenes and controls differs based on the church but still…
I outright stated I hadn’t read your link. My reply was on a phone, and I was tossing out an example of a theistic attempt to draw lines through evolution that aren’t really there, cordoning off sections of it to declare acceptable.
That said, Catholicism is only one type of Christianity, and there’s still a sizable percentage of CATHOLICS who don’t believe in evolution, worldwide. (Yes, that makes them bad Catholics, but they seem to manage. They didn’t all stop using birth control when the Pope said it was wrong, either; they lobbied him to change his mind, and ignored him when he didn’t.) And 46% of all the people in the USA do not believe in evolution, as in, they believe “that God created man and all the animals as they are now”. So… yeah. That’s definitely not “most Christians” believing “all science is true and God created science”.
“Evolutionism” isn’t a thing, btw.
Finally: I have no problem with the idea that God lit the match that started the universe. I do have some problems with the Judeo-Christian God, but mostly I have problems with his followers, to whom, being only human, I am willing to attribute loads of errors in translation. (And we know there have been loads of errors in translation; compare the Hebrew and the English yourself, there are sites out there that break it down very nicely. I especially like one website that explains why all the passages that seemingly condemn homosexuality are literally talking about something else completely.)
And I am also spiritual myself. I am an agnostic, albeit one who specifically believes that if something else created the universe, it’s probably too amazing and strange for our tiny human brains to comprehend.
So my belief in a god, or multiple gods, is a bit abstract and impersonal. It doesn’t affect my daily life, and since no form of god is necessary for life to have evolved as it did, I am very open to the possibility that there is nothing. I don’t fear that, because rationally I know that if I die and there’s nothing, I won’t be CONSCIOUS of the nothingness. It’s not like I’ll spend eternity in a void, lonely or whatever. So that’s okay. Obviously some form of Heaven is preferable, but I literally won’t be capable of minding. I tend a little more on the reincarnation side anyway.
BUT, and for me here is the sticking point, I know there’s no evidence to support these abstract beliefs. They don’t hurt or even affect anyone around me, and I am capable of being a good person without needing to think I will be punished or rewarded for my behavior after death.
And I kind of wish more self-proclaimed religious people put more effort into being good people, and less into telling everyone else what will happen after they die and that they need to stop [behaviors that harm no one], because they’ve twisted a badly-translated book into letting them police other people’s sex lives.
Seriously.
I call bull on all the different variations of creationism, so we’re even. Not that they’re actually different when it comes to the question at hand anyway; the discussion is not about cosmology or the universal creation as a whole. It’s where all the species came from. And on that link there were only three answers. At most.
I’m having trouble understanding your position on this. Everybody I know who is Christian believes in Theistic Evolution. Its the official stance of the Catholic Church and most older Protestant churches.
My position is that there ain’t a continuum of different answers to how the difference species got here. There are three answers. “Magic!”, “Natural processes!”, and “Magic masquerading as natural processes!”.
You wondered aloud whether anybody would mention that there’s a spectrum of answers. My response is ‘probably not’. Because it ain’t a spectrum. It’s three distinct points. That’s pretty much my whole position.
Unrelated rambling: Theistic evolution falls into the ‘evolution’ camp, by the description on your site; for it to work, evolution as a process must be real. On the other hand, about 46% of Americans don’t believe in evolution. So obviously some people buy into the other two camps. Joyce would be an example; so would young!Willis. From this I use my brilliant powers of deduction to conclude that you don’t personally know more than 54% of Americans, Christian or not. Not that it really matters one way or the other.
You do not know most people.
I mean, I’m just saying. It is statistically impossible for you to know most Christians, and as begbert2 says above, we know from polling that 46% of Americans don’t believe in evolution at all, theistic or otherwise.
Every time Joyce gets a sucker Xzibit instantly appears.
I’ll be the first to admit I am *new* to these comics. I haven’t read It’s Walky or the others yet, this is my first one.
And I’m also a Christian. Very strong in my beliefs.
And please don’t take this as an attack on anything, but it bothers me that everytime Joyce seems to come on- she seems to be the butt of a “haha you’re a Christian and so you’re stupid” joke.
Constantly with the whole she doesn’t believe in evolution and therefore she is uneducated.
I’m sorry but Evolution, while factual in anyway is still a theory. Not to say it is or isn’t true or that a theory can not be true, but since it’s a theory you don’t *have* to believe in it to be considered an intelligent individual.
If she were really blind and stupid, she probably wouldn’t be in college right now.
That’s not so much the problem though, as I’m waiting for a chance for *her* to shine. For *her* faith to come out on top of any of these conversations. Though I know that’s not likely to happen.
I’d just like some reassurance this isn’t one of those, “Educate the poor Christian girl until she realizes it’s stupid to believe in Creationism.” storylines.
Ok, first of all, I think you might wanna read this page: http://www.dumbingofage.com/about/
Especially the part about Joyce being autobiographical. That is, if you haven’t already.
Second of all, truth never demands belief. You don’t have to believe that scientific fact is true. It’ll be true whether you believe it or not. Not to mention, that “it’s just a theory” ‘argument’ is pretty easily combated. Gravity is a theory, but I can assume it’s safe to say you haven’t jumped off a building for that reason.
Third of all, yes, I realize this comment is 3 years and 2 days old.
Joyce has previously acknowledged that she wilfully keeps secret from herself things that would interfere with her beliefs; the literal defenition of doublethink, where she’s conscious of some given information and at the same time consciously ignoring it.
Which while a very impressive mental exercise is obviously bad for her psychological well-being. Under this constant input of information she needs to not-learn it’s only a matter of time until something slips through and is allowed to teach her something.
That’s what happens here: A minor but irreversible ontological shock. I like to think it’s a way to soften up your head and prepare it to accommodate growing and enabling bigger ideas. It’s painful, sure, but that’s life for you. We have to trust that it’s worthwhile in the end.
Damn. It IS pretty funny.
BEARMONSTER SHIRT 😀