Garry Trudeau's Ribald Defense of the Reigning Fairy Tale
Last Sunday the Doonesbury comic was a vicious swipe at those who believe in God and what He says in the Bible. Some of cartoonist Garry Trudeau's stuff is fine, but far too often he lights into those who don't share his view of things, and when he does he just looks mostly foolish. His strip Sunday was a classic instance of this.
I couldn't help but put together an alternate version, one that reflects the truth about the scientific evidence, and that version is here .
I went ahead and put mine up on "the wall" at Facebook and thought, hmm, wonder if anyone's going to add some remarks? Would they be favorable, from those who tend to believe in God as He shares Himself in the Bible? Or would they be unfavorable, from those who don't quite believe in all that in that way?
So far I've gotten two "Likes," which is really cool, but not a single comment. This is kind of why I really don't spend too much time on Facebook. I mean there are very good things about it. I like that I can message people -- it's like a very convenient email service. I like that some of my friends and family have awesome, sometimes very funny or touching things to share.
But what I don't like is that no one ever goes beyond the small talk. Really, Facebook is just one big small talk forum. And this is just me, but I'm very much not a small-talk person. The issue isn't that people really want to just do small talk, however.
They really don't want to do big talk.
Big talk is mixing it up about things like this Darwinism thing. But few will put up their thoughts because most just don't want to get into it, and they don't because it is just too risky.
Sometimes people have that passion to share, and it spills into the comments area. A week or so ago I saw a drag-out discussion in the comments area by two women who are very good friends, avowed followers of Christ, but one is entrenched in the typical liberal perspective of political fixes and the other in the typical conservative one. The fireworks between them was kind of unseemly.
As I read each of their comments, I noted something very common. It was that they both have very good reasons for what they believe, but sadly they will never get to the point of truly understanding why the other individual has those reasons, and much less why each of them can't get beyond their standard ideological blappings.
If they were both to understand what is going on with all that -- what kind of forces are at work that are only about eating them for lunch -- they'd both come to a gracious and profoundly meaningful understanding of things and of one another, perhaps even join an ungrafted community where the most powerful disciples love others with the rich sowing strength of God. What is also discouraging is that I know one of those gals actually read at least some of Rulers of Evil, but the Society does such a phenomenally proficient job of keeping people moored to the World that it just doesn't seem to mean anything. ::Sigh::
One of the greatest achievements of the Society is convincing so many that Darwinism is true. What is so funny about it is that most of the defenses of Darwinism are mere attacks against those who question it. If you look carefully at any and all the explanations of Darwinism, even the most turgidly detailed ones, you can see gaping holes...
If you'd just look carefully at them.
One of the most glaring is just that science has proven that Darwinism can't possibly be true. As I put in the revised comic, there just isn't enough time for all the complexities of life to form through purely Darwinian mechanisms. There just isn't, scientifically so. If Darwinism is true, it is like saying that planted watermelon seeds will have fully mature watermelons on the vine in the span of a single minute. This is just not possible through standard, physical, mechanistic processes.
I'm not even saying anything about whether or not the biblical account is true. I think it is and that we can know it. But this is about something else we can know: that Darwinism is a fairy tale dreamt up and now held on to for dear life by those who simply refuse to see that some transcendent being had to have had a hand in all this.
And that means that if there is indeed some transcendent behind it all then it is very possible that this being is the God who also made morality and as such holds each individual accountable for his or her behavior.
This too scary? It is for me! I know I'd get the business end of any righteous judgment because I've been kind of an asshole for large swaths of my life, so I knew there was only one thing I could do:
Adopt a ridiculous philosophy that tries really hard to explain how life began and developed just on its own with no real evidence or meaningful explanation of how it could actually work, and especially one that does away with any and all of this pesky God business.
Well, not exactly.
No, the only viable option is to humbly come before a God who accepts no excuses, but also loves us so much that He Himself took the much deserved penalty for me, dying a criminal's death in my place, and all I have to do is see it, realize it, accept it, and tell him that by repenting of my sin, turning to Him as He is with no pretense on my part whatsoever, and genuinely thanking Him for doing what He did.
I believe this also involves a commitment to understand what's really going on regarding the contrast between the Kingdom from which His disciples may now thrive, and the World from which operatives exploit the sinfulness of man to keep him in bondage to all the institutions authorized to crack heads with extreme prejudice.
And so, yeah, I was actually thinking of making this blog post as a more elaborate and lucid response to the overwhelming wave of comments to my revised Doonsebury comic. Putting it in a comments box for all to see, get a better idea of why I put it together like I did.
But yeah, well... It's not a surprise. A disappointment, yes, but definitely not a surprise.
No one's paying attention.
I know why know one's paying attention, but again, that doesn't make it any better.
_
BTW, I put together a little project in a webpage at my site about the reality of the ideological divide. It's here. Just thought I'd add it. I'd also written a home page piece a few years ago that touches a bit on the history of Darwinism promulgation, that's here. And for a great take on how the account of Noah and the flood is indeed true, check out Hugh Ross' site Reasons to Believe.
_
I couldn't help but put together an alternate version, one that reflects the truth about the scientific evidence, and that version is here .
I went ahead and put mine up on "the wall" at Facebook and thought, hmm, wonder if anyone's going to add some remarks? Would they be favorable, from those who tend to believe in God as He shares Himself in the Bible? Or would they be unfavorable, from those who don't quite believe in all that in that way?
So far I've gotten two "Likes," which is really cool, but not a single comment. This is kind of why I really don't spend too much time on Facebook. I mean there are very good things about it. I like that I can message people -- it's like a very convenient email service. I like that some of my friends and family have awesome, sometimes very funny or touching things to share.
But what I don't like is that no one ever goes beyond the small talk. Really, Facebook is just one big small talk forum. And this is just me, but I'm very much not a small-talk person. The issue isn't that people really want to just do small talk, however.
They really don't want to do big talk.
Big talk is mixing it up about things like this Darwinism thing. But few will put up their thoughts because most just don't want to get into it, and they don't because it is just too risky.
Sometimes people have that passion to share, and it spills into the comments area. A week or so ago I saw a drag-out discussion in the comments area by two women who are very good friends, avowed followers of Christ, but one is entrenched in the typical liberal perspective of political fixes and the other in the typical conservative one. The fireworks between them was kind of unseemly.
As I read each of their comments, I noted something very common. It was that they both have very good reasons for what they believe, but sadly they will never get to the point of truly understanding why the other individual has those reasons, and much less why each of them can't get beyond their standard ideological blappings.
If they were both to understand what is going on with all that -- what kind of forces are at work that are only about eating them for lunch -- they'd both come to a gracious and profoundly meaningful understanding of things and of one another, perhaps even join an ungrafted community where the most powerful disciples love others with the rich sowing strength of God. What is also discouraging is that I know one of those gals actually read at least some of Rulers of Evil, but the Society does such a phenomenally proficient job of keeping people moored to the World that it just doesn't seem to mean anything. ::Sigh::
One of the greatest achievements of the Society is convincing so many that Darwinism is true. What is so funny about it is that most of the defenses of Darwinism are mere attacks against those who question it. If you look carefully at any and all the explanations of Darwinism, even the most turgidly detailed ones, you can see gaping holes...
If you'd just look carefully at them.
One of the most glaring is just that science has proven that Darwinism can't possibly be true. As I put in the revised comic, there just isn't enough time for all the complexities of life to form through purely Darwinian mechanisms. There just isn't, scientifically so. If Darwinism is true, it is like saying that planted watermelon seeds will have fully mature watermelons on the vine in the span of a single minute. This is just not possible through standard, physical, mechanistic processes.
I'm not even saying anything about whether or not the biblical account is true. I think it is and that we can know it. But this is about something else we can know: that Darwinism is a fairy tale dreamt up and now held on to for dear life by those who simply refuse to see that some transcendent being had to have had a hand in all this.
And that means that if there is indeed some transcendent behind it all then it is very possible that this being is the God who also made morality and as such holds each individual accountable for his or her behavior.
This too scary? It is for me! I know I'd get the business end of any righteous judgment because I've been kind of an asshole for large swaths of my life, so I knew there was only one thing I could do:
Adopt a ridiculous philosophy that tries really hard to explain how life began and developed just on its own with no real evidence or meaningful explanation of how it could actually work, and especially one that does away with any and all of this pesky God business.
Well, not exactly.
No, the only viable option is to humbly come before a God who accepts no excuses, but also loves us so much that He Himself took the much deserved penalty for me, dying a criminal's death in my place, and all I have to do is see it, realize it, accept it, and tell him that by repenting of my sin, turning to Him as He is with no pretense on my part whatsoever, and genuinely thanking Him for doing what He did.
I believe this also involves a commitment to understand what's really going on regarding the contrast between the Kingdom from which His disciples may now thrive, and the World from which operatives exploit the sinfulness of man to keep him in bondage to all the institutions authorized to crack heads with extreme prejudice.
And so, yeah, I was actually thinking of making this blog post as a more elaborate and lucid response to the overwhelming wave of comments to my revised Doonsebury comic. Putting it in a comments box for all to see, get a better idea of why I put it together like I did.
But yeah, well... It's not a surprise. A disappointment, yes, but definitely not a surprise.
No one's paying attention.
I know why know one's paying attention, but again, that doesn't make it any better.
_
BTW, I put together a little project in a webpage at my site about the reality of the ideological divide. It's here. Just thought I'd add it. I'd also written a home page piece a few years ago that touches a bit on the history of Darwinism promulgation, that's here. And for a great take on how the account of Noah and the flood is indeed true, check out Hugh Ross' site Reasons to Believe.
_
Comments
Post a Comment