Funny. Although, of course, creationists actually have a response to this. They allow that there is such a thing as ‘micro-evolution’ – we can observe that for instance we need tougher bug bombs to kill roaches than we used to, resistant strains of pathogens have popped up in our lifetime. But they deny what they call ‘macro-evolution’ which they define as a change from one species to another.
And that’s the truely cool thing about religion. You can pick and choose which data supports your position and disregard the rest
And if you drop a creationist off a tall building, he’ll be forced to believe in the theory of gravity as well.
The problem is that this amounts to an attempt to wear the cloak of science. But science now has serious doubts about the rigid classification system and what it implies about ‘species.’ That is, the word species describes something that is kind of fluid to begin with, so a worldview based on a notion of immutability of species is problematic.
But, the ‘micro-evolution’ argument is one of the few instances I can think of where creationists have responded to criticism with new arguments. Well, there’s the whole ‘intelligent design’ thing, but that’s really an attempt to end-run around the Supreme Court’s decision against teaching ‘Creationism.’ They re-emerge with a new name and new arguments, and they tell the faithful “Don’t worry, this is still Cretionism.”
Most creationists have also stopped arguing Young Earth creationism, since a 6000 year-old earth is just too absurd to be defended.
But stopping the use of the most ridiculous, indefensible arguments in public is nothing but a media ploy. Nothing about the basic beliefs change. And saying that micro-evolution is fundamentally different from macro-evolution is only playing with scientific-sounding words, not an explanation of anything.
And back to the OP: Hooray for Doonesbury. Now we just have to wait to see what bit of Cretinism Johnny Hart uses to reply to it.
Is there a pattern that Hart replies to other’s strips? It could certainly be, but I don’t follow daily. Can’t keep up.
And, while not trying to hijack this thread, I’ll start a new one in the Pit about Hart’s strip this week…
http://www.comics.com/creators/bc/archive/bc-20051216.html
Yes, and because of this, today’s Doonesbury was worse than useless as an attack on creationism: by rebutting a position that creationists don’t even hold, it makes it look as though Trudeau doesn’t even understand what creationists believe, or that he doesn’t have a real argument against it, so he’s attacking a straw man.
The controversy is over the origin of species. I know of no creationist that denies that a species can adapt and change (“evolve,” if you want to use that word) to make it better suited for survival.
Except you’re dealing with the general population. The general public, IMHO, is pretty unsophisticated, and in general tends to go for things like “sound bites.” This is a visual “sound bite.” You’re just too sophisticated to accept the strip for what it is. 
I think it was an unintended stroke of genius.
Thudlow, you’re wrong on this one. The reality is that there are first of all still plenty of creationists who believe that species cannot change, and further, many of those that claim to believe in “microevolution,” when you actually go and look at their claims, believe nothing of the sort and in fact still stand in direct contradiction to what diseases to to evolve drug resistence. For instance, it’s a VERY common argument in creationist circles that “microevolution” cannot increase genetic information. Often its even claimed that drug resistence involves no mutationaly-gained advantage at all (since they refuse to acknowledge the existence of beneficial mutation: it is simply an existing resistant strain coming to dominate in the face of antibiotics.
All of this continues to be a denial of the sorts of things that we see in the evolution of diseases. Creationists have modified their rhetoric slightly to acknowledge “change” of some sort, preferring to engage the debate on the level of species where they feel they hav more obvious advantages, but the underlying ideas commonly held are still in flat denial of the ability of organisms to adapt genetically or find new advanatage via mutation.
Well, I dunno, the average man-in-the-street Creationists seem to have a caricature X-Men Comics version of what evolution is about in their heads, wherein there’s no disconnect or confusion about the idea of adaptation (“microevolution”) as long as Creature A is still Creature A w/o transforming into obviously, majorly different Creature B. Now, sure, as Apos said, their “scientific” arguments don’t hold water, but all they need is to muddy the waters and count on that those of us on the side of reason and real science will be too ethical, prudent or proud to get down to their level. As Exapno writes, often that’s just a recipe for making everyone look respectable,
I have personally talked to religious people who, on precise questioning, believe that every word in the King James version of the Bible is true, including the contradictory bits. I don’t think these kinds of people are going to quibble over micro- vs. macro-evolution - they know what they believe, and that’s all they want to know.
Now, I like the idea of throwing the concept of “species” out the window. My forays into plant and animal biology have raised the question frequently about “what species does this belong to?”, with many examples of un-clear answers. A spectrum of flora and fauna makes a lot more sense than discrete species.
No! Say it isn’t so! A strawman attack in a comic strip! What is the world coming to? 
I still don’t think it’s a straw man. AIDS is so dangerous precisely because it mutates so quickly. Not just existing variations, but new RNA codes that spontaneously occur and are then selected for when they help overcome our drugs and cures. This idea: the idea that mutations acn ever provide beneficial improvements (information content) is precisely what modern day cerationists and even ID proponents deny. So it’s hardly a straw man to say that they continue by and large to deny the key insights into how diseases evolve, regardless of whether they say they accept “micro-evolution.”
My best friends are like this. 6000 year old earth and all. Fundamentalists all the way, who don’t know why I have Fallen by the wayside. I of course can’t understand how they can believe in biblical inerrancy with so many obvious contradictions and mistakes. [hijack]BTW, are rabbits kosher?[/hijack]
Rabbits? No, assuredly not. “Cud-chewing” (actually, pellet-reprocessing) and non-cloven-footed; that slings 'em straight out the door. They’re specifically listed in Leviticus or somewhere.
;j ← Mal is not actually Jewish, you understand.
Yeah, that is the point. Rabbits are listed in Leviticus 11:6 as being cud chewing and non-cloven hoofed, so not kosher. But rabbits don’t actually chew cud. IOW, the Bible is wrong. :eek: Which makes me wonder how they are handled (so to speak) by the Jewish dietary laws.
Lok
Well, for a given value of “wrong”. They don’t regurgitate partially-digested grass, but they do shit pellets of the same and chew 'em over again, as opposed to shitting actual shit, which they don’t chew. Aren’t you glad you’re not a rabbit?
Sorry, but rabbits are not mentioned in Leviticus at all. The animal in question is a hare.
Rabbits may be kosher; hares are specifically said to be treif. This was proven by dissection in the Temple – the rabbis who wrote the Talmud are known for their aptitude for splitting hares.
You certainly deserve a GROAN for this.
;j