Jack Chick: You’re Either Stupid or Creationist

Our zeal to bring you the most up-to-date creationist thinking has caused us to visit the all-too-often scorned and neglected Jack Chick website. Chick, as you know, is the world’s greatest theologian, philosopher, illustrator, communicator, and creationist. If you’re not yet familiar with the Creationist Comic Books from Jack Chick, you ought to be. They’re classics — especially Big Daddy?

This morning we were examining his newsletter, Battle Cry. In that awesome repository of creationist lore we came upon this new article: Creation or Evolution? Evidence from Design.

It’s written by Thomas Heinze. Once before we posted about one of his articles we found at Chick’s website: Jack Chick: Sex Is Evolution’s Nightmare. In Heinze’s latest, we’ll skip over his introductory paragraphs about how we can observe that a car is designed. Then he tells us that ancient fossil ants look like ants. After that he gets to the good stuff. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

Now let’s jump from ants to bacteria. When we try to think of a living thing that is very small and simple, bacteria come to mind because atheists often suggest that other living things evolved from bacteria. Where did bacteria come from? My answer is that God created living things and bacteria were among the things He created. The evolutionist is caught between a rock and a hard place when he tries to account for bacteria or anything else that he might want to claim came first.

Note that Heinze uses the words “atheist” and “evolutionist” interchangeably. To him they’re the same. In his next paragraph he seems to get a bit carried away:

I call now on my friends who are evolutionists! Trace or imagine life’s genealogy back as far as you can. Unless at some point you admit some kind of intelligent design and creation, you are stuck with the idea that the first living thing, bacterium or whatever, was not formed by God, but by the random movements of atoms and molecules. They would have to have come together by accident and made a living thing already perfect enough to be able to function.

We’ve seen that argument before; it’s one of the best that the creationists have. They criticize evolution by scoffing at a fictional “law” they made up, and upon which they claim evolution is based. We call it the Theory of Spontaneous Assembly of Very Complex Molecules from Start to Finish from Utterly Isolated Atoms — commonly known as TSAVCMSFUIA. Let’s read on:

Open your eyes! The DNA in bacteria comes already programmed to reproduce other bacteria. Why would an accident have gone to the extra work of producing bacteria that could reproduce? That ability requires additional complex equipment.

Yes, open your eyes! We continue:

Push an evolutionist back far enough and he must either admit that he is stumped, or back into some sort of creationist position. There is no decent atheistic answer to the question: “What did the first living things evolve from?”

Admit it, dear reader. You’re either stumped or you’re a creationist. Here’s more:

The fact that there is no reasonable atheistic answer is so completely true that it has become a law of science. “Life always comes from life!”

Hey, that’s two creationist “laws” in one essay. First TSAVCMSFUIA, now “life always comes from life.” A rare treat! Here’s how the article ends:

Living things are so awesomely complex that only God could have created them. The reason atheists who believe in evolution won’t recognize this is that they still have faith in stupid old myths and legends about “simple cells” that were debunked years ago. The evidence shouts: “Even bacteria were created by an intelligent Creator!”

Not much we can add to that. According to Heinze you either have faith in stupid old myths or else you’re a creationist. Hey, that’s three laws in a single article!

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “Jack Chick: You’re Either Stupid or Creationist

  1. “What did the first living things evolve from?”
    Um- peanut butter, wasn’t it?

  2. Tomato Addict

    “I call now on my friends who are evolutionists!”

    A small audience, or possibly measured in imaginary numbers.

  3. “I call now on my friends who are evo….”
    Damn, Tomata beat me to it.
    At least we know he has one imaginary “friend” so a few more won’t make much difference.

  4. Jack Chick, in the true Christian spirit, you are my friend. And as your friend, I’d like to ask you to consider evidence of design on a broader scale than just the origin of life.

    Let’s consider the solar system. I’d be more inclined to believe God put the sun and moon in the sky to help us measure time if the earth rotated exactly 364 times on its axis for every one revolution around the sun, and not one microsecond faster or slower. As for the moon; exactly 13 revolutions around the earth per year. The result would be a perfect 13-month calendar, each month containing exactly four weeks of seven days each.
    No need for leap years or any other periodic corrections of timekeeping.

    It would be very difficult to argue against design if that were indeed the case. But since it is not the case, it is difficult to argue for design.

  5. @RetiredScienceGuy –

    If the world is intelligently designed, then wouldn’t the world be as the most careful observations, experiments, and reasoning tells us that it is? If, on the other hand, the world is just a series of accidents, then we could not rely on our observations. If life on earth is not related by common descent over billions of years, then it is not intelligently designed.

    Of course, the experts in “Intelligent Design” will tell us that ID does not specify anything about the world, about “why this and not something else”. It could be so irrationally designed that life doesn’t evolve, or so irrationally designed that the Sun would be going around a fixed Earth.

  6. TomS: “If the world is intelligently designed, then wouldn’t the world be as the most careful observations, experiments, and reasoning tells us that it is? If, on the other hand, the world is just a series of accidents, then we could not rely on our observations.”

    Question for sentence #1: Why?
    Question for sentence #2: Why not?

  7. @Retiredsciguy

    Awating Tom’s answers here’s my 2c:

    1. I would say that we don’t know either way. But most educated theists without a radical authoritarian agenda think that (1) their God is not deceiving us, (2) science is correct about what God did, when and how, and (3) that the only way to pretend otherwise is to do what anti-science activists do – play favorites with the evidence.

    2. While I disagree with Dembski’s claim that “design” is mutually exclusive of chance and regularity, I do find the concepts of C + R instructive. If it were all chance (“accidents”) and no regularity, then our observations would be useless. AIUI it’s the non-chance components of evolution (natural selection, some aspects of genetic change, etc.) that allows us to conclude the past and predict what else we might find about it.

    Speaking of Dembski and the Discoveroids, if Chick thinks that one is either a creationist or stupid, does that mean that he considers those Discoveroids that claim not to be creationists stupid? How about those theistic evolutionists who call themselves “creationists”? Not stupid?

  8. Push an evolutionist back far enough and he must either admit that he is stumped, or back into some sort of creationist position.

    What’s wrong with being stumped?

  9. Slightly off-topic to this post, but very on-topic to the blog:

    http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/guest_bloggers/5398/are_creationist_beliefs_too_extreme_for_creationists/

    I wonder if there will be a reaction.

  10. Ed: “What’s wrong with being stumped?”

    If anything, scientists seek to be stumped. As one reviewer of an anti-evolution screed wrote, “who wants to work in a field that’s all wrapped up?” The problem is that (1) most people don’t understand that, and (2) most scientists (myself included) do not have the verbal skills to answer that “challenge” in a way that’s easily grasped by nonscientists.

    The only way I can think of to try to answer is to show people that anti-science activists are playing a “heads I win, tails you lose” game. We fill a “gap,” they point out that there are now 2 “gaps,” etc. Keeping the “debate” on “weaknesses” of evolution and/or “evidences” of design guarantees that the anti-science activist wins the war of sound bites with the majority of the audience – not just the ~25% that will not admit evolution under any circumstances.

    But we can play their game too, and we can do it without invoking logical fallacies or bearing false witness. We must keep asking them questions about their (mutually contradictory) “theories,” and force them to either admit that “something like evolution is true” or that they believe their fairy tale in spite of evidence that refutes it.

  11. @RetiredScienceGuy:

    I agree that “Intelligent Design” as it is described by the advocates of ID is compatible with any consequences at all, including the consequence that we don’t know anything about anything. Because, of course, ID is not described by its advocates.

  12. Ceteris Paribus

    RetiredScienceGuy argues:

    I’d be more inclined to believe God [sic] put the sun and moon in the sky to help us measure time if the earth rotated exactly 364 times on its axis for every one revolution around the sun, and not one microsecond faster or slower. As for the moon; exactly 13 revolutions around the earth per year. The result would be a perfect 13-month calendar, each month containing exactly four weeks of seven days each.

    This argument fails by employing the logical fallacy of Argumentum Ad Scientiam. It is clearly stated, repeatedly, in the holy book of Genesis that the length of the biblical day is precisely that interval of time between sunset, which is the beginning of a new day, and sunrise which is when the day ends.

    Similarly, the length of a biblical month is precisely that interval of time between the first priestly sighting of the crescent new moon, and the following sighting of the crescent new moon.

    It’s really all so simple and beautiful, and, and, HOLY! and if all you science guys would just admit to the goodness of this perfect design you would all be much more happy and maybe stop messing around with blasphemous ideas about the earth rotating, and needing decimal points, and employing unholy concepts like sidereal time.