• First off, why are there villains in the Chickster's comix so physically unappealing? If I were Evil, I'd certainly want my minions to be attractive. It would make it easier to seduce the innocent. Certainly worked for Ms. Frost in 'Dark Dungeon.'
• Other commentators and J. Chick 'fans' have noted a certain Semitic quality to this fellow's features. I'm sure it was coincidental.
• No evolutionist thinks a banana-eating gorilla is our 'Father.' He's at least three generations back.
• 'Belief' is a characteristic of a religion. Most of my biology instructors started with 'Today, we learn about...' or 'Who has heard of...?' No one starts with 'How many of you believe in electricity?'

• Just me, but I have been student, instructor and observer. I have NEVER seen a teacher go off like this...at least not at the START of the lesson...

• Few biology instructors are really equipped to 'systematically tear your little beliefs to shreds' nor would they try. This isn't a theology class, or comparative religion.
• Certainly a clean-cut kid, in relation to Professor comb-over. And polite. Where are the polite creationists online? I keep meeting STRIDENT LOUD AND BELITTLING jerks who cuddn't spell KAT if there life deepened on it.
• Of course, in the second panel, he looks like a drug addict.
• What does the bible say about 'each kind...?' I'd like to see what he would have said if not interrupted. We never get back to it, so I have to assume it is just a gimmick to bring the Bible into the discussion for the next panel:

• I would like to see evidence that a student in this country has been jailed for mentioning the Bible. Not the one that got expelled for evangelizing, long after the school told him to stop.
• *1 On the note, "It has never been against the law to teach the Bible or creation in public schools, ... " this is true, only if you don't count the numerous court rulings that have found public school creationism is unconstitutional and that Bible classes are similarly unconstitutional. Now, does "unconstitutional" mean "against the law"? I would say, "yes."
• This is set in a University. The question about public schools is immaterial...unless maybe it is hoped that public school students will take these arguments to class and convert the other students and the teacher?
• And, Kansas Creationism was thrown out exactly because it was held that it would be teaching a religion in public schools.
• Note that the author wants to stick to scientific terms. Keep this in mind.

• Note that DNA and Carbon-14 are separate from 'science.' This should amuse physicists, biologists, geologists, virologists, epidemiologists....
• In the second panel, I can see a biology teacher quoting famous scientists (although I might have mentioned Haldane, Mendel, Wright, instead), but what do popular magazines have to do FACTS-FACTS-FACTS?

• Neanderthal is not presented anymore as Early Man. It's a distinct group, not a precursor.

• According to the book I have, The Real Theory of Evolution for Complete Lipreading Morons, there is a lot of controversy over Lucy. Some say she is of a race that eventually evolved into man, others are just as sure that she is of a completely different branch. None of these large-print discussions mention 'chimpanzee.' You'd think that if Dr. Dino updated this in 2000, some of those 'most experts' would be quoted in my 2002 book. Or in Time? National Geographic?
• Also, the first scientist to suggest that 'Lucy' was a chimpanzee has since (1) actually examined the bones and (2) recanted the chimpanzee theory.
• *1 As for Lucy being found in 212 million year old rock, I recall reading somewhere (forgive me for not remembering) that the 212 million year old surroundings is actually a dating error. The skeleton was not found in that contradictory environment. Plus, most experts do not agree that Lucy is a chimp. This is the kind of misinformation you get when you believe "Dr." Kent Hovind.

• Wonderful names? Does Chick think that there is an attempt to obfuscate through excessively tortured terminoligation? Or is it because Science and the evil Catholics use Latin?
• What person knowing anything about real science thinks it has ALL the answers? If that were true, there would be no need for research, just cataloging and naming (with those wonderful names).
• Keep an eye open for those 'amazing findings.'

• We've gone from 'most experts' to 'nearly all experts' in 3 panels. None named or referenced, of course.
• He doesn't mention that the same scientist that found and identified the Nebraska Man later discovered his own error and owned up to it.
• Piltdown Man was a hoax. That it was a hoax was discovered (and published) by later scientists, as the increasing evidence could not accommodate P.M. It was not Science's finest hour, but it was a case of science self-correcting, however slowly.
• The original bones of Peking Man disappeared, but there are casts remaining, so SOME evidence has not disappeared.
• Are there any text books in use that still discuss Piltdown Man? Did Nebraska Man EVER make it into a text book?
• *1 As for the chart showing the evolution of man, get real. Two of those (Piltdown and Nebraska) are readily acknowledged as being fake and their standing in the real "evolution of man" chart was revoked. Peking man is but one of many homo erectus finds, and, yes, the original Peking man fossil has disappeared. But there are many casts of that fossil and other erectus fossils corroborate the Peking man. Neanderthal fossils have been found and it wasn't some arthritic old man. I couldn't find any "New Guinea man" on Talk Origins. Cro-Magnon man is homo sapien. And there are plenty of other fossils the chart ignores. Of course, they all illustrate the opposite of Chick's point, so who's surprised?

• There are about 60 Neandertal skeletons known. The arthritis or rickets theory is that they're all Modern Man, but sick.
• New Guinea man is a modern man, not a transitional. It only gets 'play' in Creationist literature. And why is it even here? The caption under it doesn't say anything for or against Evolution, much less any 'amazing findings rarely made public.'

• It would be circular reasoning if that had anything at all to do with reality. That's why no one DOES that.
• Geologists were aging rock strata long before Darwin published his Theory. These would have been Creationist geologists. The introduction of Evolutionary Theory did not substantially alter Geology Science.
• Geologists do not require a memo from paleobiologists before they can date a particular stratum.

• The problems of petrified trees 'going through many layers' were dealt with by Creationist Geologists two centuries ago. We still are not seeing the Science we were promised. Not all layers of dirt/mud are millimeters thick. Anyone ever heard of a mud avalanche?
• *1 As for the trees in millions of years of rock, trees and other things are often buried in the upheaval of our planet's geology. It's quick and doesn't take millions of years.
• Biological illustrations (line drawings made for clarity) are not 'made up...drawings.' any more than circuit diagrams are electronic fantasies.
• *1 The gill theory was disproven many years ago, and it's laughable and unlikely that a professor would try to use it as proof in this discussion.

• If we're discussing vestigial organs, why are we pointing at a bone?
• And, if this isn't a picture, it's another 'made up drawing.' Some day I have to cuise 'Dr.' Hovind's site and count the made-up drawings.
• Vestigial, in my dictionaries, doesn't mean 'no longer used' but something underdeveloped and possible evidence for something that was more developed in an ancestor. If you don't believe in evolution, nothing can be vestigial.
• Is The Kid saying the 9 muscles connected to the Coccyx are to wave it back and forth like the same muscles do for monkey tails?
• A better vestigial organ for discussion would be the appendix. Many people live quite well after having it removed. On the other hand, if you have it, it may rupture and kill you. It may possibly have some usefulness in fighting infection, but that's like using the ticking clock on a bomb for an alarm clock.
• *1 For vesitigal tails, the student suggests the tail is still viable since it has muscles running to it. Please. And what of the appendix? Is it not vestigial because it still has blood flow and collects toxins?

• Again, a strange comparison is made between bones and organs.
• There is no opposite of Evolution. Losing something that isn't needed is a good example of evolution. Or more correctly, surviving despite the lack or weakness of something, like cave fish with no working eyes.
• *1 As for whale feet/legs, there are plenty of examples of whale fossils with various stages of leg development. From Talk Origins:



According to the standard phylogenetic tree, whales are known to be the descendants of terrestrial mammals that had hindlimbs. Thus, we expect the possibility that rare mutant whales might occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs. In fact, there are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary atavistic hindlimbs in the wild (for reviews see Burzin 1972, pp. 65-67 and Hall 1984, pp. 90-93). Hindlimbs have been found in baleen whales (Sleptsov 1939), humpback whales (Andrews 1921) and in many specimens of sperm whales (Abel 1907; Berzin 1972, p. 66; Nemoto 1963; Ogawa and Kimiya 1957; Zemskii and Berzin 1961). Most of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits.

• *1 And losing something is not contrary to evolution. It simply proves adaptation.

• Sub-atomic Physics? For a college biology professor? No wonder he can't deal with THIS science.
• "We KNOW..." So, science and/or physics are accurate up to a certain degree, but stop somewhere at the subatomic level? Somewhere in there we go from Hard Science to "made up dreams?" Interesting line. See Loki again.

• As near as I can find out without actually buying a degree in physics, Gluons ARE the answer. What was the question again?
• *1 And, finally, for ety3 gluons. They are not a "made up dream." There has been decades of research into the atomic structure and gluons are the answer. It sounds to me that Chick's saying Jesus holds atoms together is a "made up dream, ... a desperate theory to explain away the truth."

• So, where it appears that God created the universe to operate with certain physical laws, not all of which are fully understood yet, in fact God is holding each atomic nucleus in place, personally? Is God holding us down, instead of gravity? So, God not only notes the fall of each sparrow, He is the one knocking them out of the sky?

• Oh, look! Dramatic irony in echoing the arrogance from way back in panel four! How excellent. And effective. I believe him now. Oh, those arrogant evolutionists... 

• Jesus is God, so evolution is a lie, so we have souls. Interesting logic chain. Even if evolution has been disproved, that does not exactly mean that biblical creation is the only other explanation.



• How about Proverbs 18:13 "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is a folly and shame unto him." It's clear that Chick has no idea what he's talking about on this subject, but his mind is made up.

So with that in mind:
• Exodus 23:1 "Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness."
Christians that spread this tract should really know better...but I encourage YOU to make your own mind up about this...don't just buy it wholesale...research.

• And, just in case anyone accidentally got 'Saved' by viewing this page, here are the standard Jack Chick Credits:

__________________________________________________________________ 

Loki's Wager: The Norse trickster once lost a bet with some dwarves. What he wagered was his head, and they came to collect. Well, he agreed that he owed his head, but was insistent that he would not give up any part of his neck. Everyone concerned discussed the matter. Certain parts were obviously head, and certain parts were obviously neck, but none could agree where the line between the two was, exactly. The ability to draw such a line between Good Science and False Science is an interesting ability of the Creationists. I tend to believe that most scientists figure that if it uses the scientific method, and produces repeatable, measurable results, it is indeed science. But since Creationists work backward from Doctrine to Acceptable Results to Experiment, they are able to tell in advance if you are practicing Science or Foolery. Loki survived by exploiting the inability to fully define the distinction. Creationism exploits a similar dubious distinction.