Jack Chick: A Test To Disprove Evolution

Actually, our title is somewhat misleading. It’s not Jack Chick’s test. It comes from someone with an article at Chick’s influential website.

You’re familiar with the creationist comics of Jack Chick, which you can read online from the links in this post: Creationist Comic Books. If you haven’t yet seen them, you really should. They’re classics — especially Big Daddy?

This morning we were examining Chick’s newsletter, Battle Cry. In that awesome repository of creationist lore we came upon this new article: How To Make a Ferrari?

It’s written by Thomas Heinze. He’s obviously a favorite of Chick’s, because his work has appeared there before. The last time we told you about one of his essays was You’re Either Stupid or Creationist.

We know you’re anxious to learn what Heinze has to tell us, so without further delay, let’s dig right in. First he discusses what Genesis has to say about the creation of life. That’s to get you properly oriented. Then he says, with bold font added by us:

Whether living things only reproduced according to their kinds, or also reproduced across kinds is the big point of conflict between evolution and creation. Evolutionists don’t believe that animals have reproduced only according to their kinds. They believe that a first single cell reproduced in enough ways to gradually give life to all the different kinds of plants and animals.

He’s right. Reproducing “across kinds” is a bit of a problem. Frankly, we’ve never tried it, nor have we heard of an instance in which it was done. Let’s read on:

In essence evolutionists believe that mutations wrote the DNA code! Evolutionists often seem to assume that around half of the random changes would have been improvements and half would cause damage. They trust natural selection to weed out damaging changes.

Silly evolutionists! Heinze continues:

The DNA code, however, is not random but carefully and intelligently written. Therefore random changes of any significance tend to make it worse. Random changes in things that have been carefully planned by intelligent minds can hardly improve them!

Well said! Now get ready, dear reader, because we’re approaching the climax of this article:

If you don’t agree, but believe that random mutations made all living things, put that concept to the test.

Aha! He’s got a test of the wacky theory of beneficial random changes. Okay, here it comes:

Lean your bicycle against your car, put on a blindfold, pick up your sledge hammer, and start beating blindly on both car and bicycle. If it makes them into a new Ferrari and racing bicycle worth 5000 dollars, I was wrong, and I apologize.

Stunning. Absolutely stunning.

Copyright © 2012. 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: A Test To Disprove Evolution

  1. Or maybe we could… I know this may be silly… but actually apply biological principles to… well… biology.

    Let’s see if a random mutation improves a species. Oh wait… Lenski did it. One of the traits of E. coli is that is can’t utilize citrate… except for Lenski’s strains that can. Arguably, the Lenski strains are a new species of E. coli.

    So, now that is taken care of, I fully expect Chick and Dembski and all the rest to shut up. Oh, and while I’m wishing, I want a pony too.

  2. The Urban Dictionary definitions of creationism are extremely amusing and include, for instance, humorously correct assessments of creationism as a conspiracy theory, that God is possibly bipolar, etc.
    Even the pitiful definitions on the last page defending the belief are worth a read for reasoning such as – if the scientific method were true, why isn’t it mentioned in the Bible?

    Coincidentally, no creationist other than Jerry Falwell was mentioned by name except Chick: “Jack Chick said science is just as evil as Catholics and Jews, and that’s why I believe in creationism.”

    I had just read SC’s piece today, so running across the name shortly afterward was interesting.

  3. Apart from the colossal absurdity of the article, I’m amazed that these clowns continue to use inorganic objects (remember McLeroy’s rock example on Colbert) to discuss/disprove biological concepts. The only plausible explanation is that they are confused over the most elementary mechanics of fossil formation, indeed the definition of “fossil”. Such a fundamental gap in knowledge would understandably contribute to their express lack of appreciation for and inability to grasp related, advanced concepts such as evolution.

  4. “Whether living things only reproduced according to their kinds, or also reproduced across kinds is the big point of conflict between evolution and creation.”

    Holy Crocoduck, Batman!

  5. Beating on a car with a sledgehammer would be unlikely to produce a Ferrari because you are just damaging the car, not changing it’s design.

    If your car bred with other cars and reproduced, over millions of generations you might have some interesting new automobiles, however. They would probably look like dune buggies or all-terrain minis. Ferraris would be way too high maintenance to survive in the wild.

  6. Off topic: First tropical storm (Alberto) off of the Carolinas, and the season hasn’t even begun yet.

  7. “…start beating blindly on both car and bicycle. If it makes them into a new Ferrari and racing bicycle worth 5000 dollars, I was wrong, and I apologize.”

    They can’t get away from projecting their premeditated, wishful-thinking agenda on real science so the example also sounds as if they are likening evolution to cloning.

    @Ed
    Your explanation won’t help since he WANTS an irreducible Ferrarri.

  8. Heinze said:

    “The DNA code, however, is not random but carefully and intelligently written. Therefore random changes of any significance tend to make it worse. Random changes in things that have been carefully planned by intelligent minds can hardly improve them!”

    If “DNA code” is not random, and is carefully and intelligently ‘written’ by the designer god, then how can there ever be “random” changes, regardless of whether they improve something or make it worse? What that moron is actually saying is that his imaginary designer god carefully and intelligently ‘wrote’ all mutations, both beneficial and detrimental, into the “DNA code”. So, all the bad stuff that is due to mutations is a deliberate act of the designer god, and can’t be blamed on anything random or evolutionary. Therefor the designer god is a sadistic monster. I’m glad that’s settled.

  9. He’s not the brightest noodle in the bag, is he?

  10. Tomato Addict

    Sort of O/T, but at http://boxcar2d.com/ you can play with a Flash program the uses a genetic algorithm to design “cars”. It’s pretty cool.

  11. techreseller

    OrgeMkV

    You are wishing and all you want is a pony. Not the Ferrari or the racing bike? You need to get out more. Oh and you are correct.

  12. Jim Thomerson

    The genetic code is a degenerate code. I don’t think I would have designed it that way, but maybe that is OK with creationists.