Jack Chick’s Newsletter — One More Time!

As you know, Jack Chick was one of the world’s greatest creationists, and his loss has left a big void in our humble blog. But his website lives on, and every now and then his successors update their newsletter, Battle Cry.

Today they have a new article which is certain to amuse you. It’s titled Evolutionists Getting Beat on Their Own Turf, and it has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Some very smart people are continuing to put die-hard evolutionists in a corner. [Who are those “very smart people”?] These scientists are increasingly convinced that the biology of animals and humans is too complex to have been created by chance, no matter how many millions of years are involved. [Wow!] For some time now, these biology professionals have described what they call irreducible complexity. [Hee hee!] For example, the human eye is too intricate for it to form piece-meal over time. Besides that, for it to fulfill its purpose, it had to have all its pieces and features functioning at the same time.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s an old Discoveroid clunker. Wikipedia has an article on it: Irreducible complexity, so we don’t have to bother rebutting it again. What else do the Jack Chick folks have for us? Ah, they say:

Baffling, also, is the “fine-tuning” of the universe. [Ooooooooooooh! Fine tuning!] In thousands of ways, if the building blocks of matter or the arrangement of those blocks were only slightly different, not only would life be impossible, the entire cosmos would collapse or disintegrate. For example, a slight change in the force of gravity and the sun and earth would no longer be at the exact distance to support life. We would either fry or freeze.

We’ve dealt with the “fine tuning” clunker before too. For example, see The Death of the ‘Fine Tuning’ Argument? Moving along, the Chick folks then tell us:

We have discovered that the DNA molecule contains a complex blueprint for even the tiniest details of our bodies. Another term being used is “specified complexity.” Not only are we complex, but there appears to exist a specification to the complexity. Before a contractor builds a house, he “specifies” a list of materials needed according to the architect’s (designer’s) blueprint.

This is getting tiresome. It’s just one clunker after another. Wikipedia has an article on that one too: Specified complexity. Oh wait — take a look at this paragraph from the Chick newsletter:

Chick Publications has long recognized that evolution is the foundation lie for many other evils in the world. Marx believed it. Hitler believed it. Humanists believe it. Socialists believe it. The Pope believes it. Environmentalists believe it.

We’ve debunked all of that nonsense, years ago. Well, not their claim about the Pope and environmentalists, who are mostly well enough educated to know and accept the theory of evolution. As for the others, well, you’ve heard this stuff before. In all of his writings, Marx never discussed Darwin or his theory. Hitler never heard of Darwin and never mentioned him. See Hitler and Darwin. As for socialism, the very concept is contrary to evolution — see Marx, Stalin, and Darwin.

Here’s one last excerpt:

It [evolution, presumably] is the only fallback available to anyone who refuses to recognize a Creator.

The Chick folks are trying to link evolution and atheism — and it doesn’t work. There are loads of religious folks — not Chick customers, of course — who have no problem with evolution. As for atheists, we have no idea whether they all accept evolution. Some do, of course, but as for the others — who knows? Some might believe in an eternal system of reincarnation, with no evolution required.

The rest of the newsletter entry is a paragraph attempting to sell Chick comics and a book that bashes evolution. Click over there if you care to explore those options. We don’t, so we’re outta here!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

6 responses to “Jack Chick’s Newsletter — One More Time!

  1. According to the “fine tuning” argument, the ways of physics must be very close to the ways that they are here and now. That means that the measurements of the age of the Earth are correctly given in billions of years.

  2. Dave Luckett

    Lie #1: “Some very smart people are continuing to put die-hard evolutionists in a corner.”

    No such thing is happening. Every attack on evolution by die-hard creationists has been comprehensively refuted by real scientists. There is no “corner”. Creationism is receding in numbers and influence.

    Lie #2: “These scientists…”

    There is no scientist doing relevant science who thinks that. Yes, there are some publicists and far outliers involved in different fields, and a few long-retired researchers, also usually from different fields, but no working scientists, doing actual relevant science.

    Lie #3: “biology professionals have described what they called “irreducible complexity””…

    No “biology professional” uses this term, because it’s useless. It was coined by Michael Behe, whose work was on sickle-cell anaemia. It is used exclusively by him and creationists. It was comprehensively destroyed in court.

    Lie #4: “the human eye is too intricate for it to form piece-meal over time”

    Darwin hoisted that one out of the park, a century and a half ago. Saying it over is simply repeating a lie.

    Lie #5: the ‘fine-tuning’ of the Universe.

    Repeating an unknown as if it were known is a lie. Condensed matter is capable of forming in this Universe. If it were not, we wouldn’t exist. But if we didn’t exist, we wouldn’t observe that fact. The “fine-tuning” argument is only saying that if things weren’t what they are, they’d be different. Well, duh.

    Lie #6: “there appears to exist a specification to the complexity”

    There is no such specification that argues any intent.

    Lie #7: evolution is the foundation lie for many other evils in the world.

    That’s a lie so egregious as to turn the stomach, so blatant as to revolt a decent person’s conscience.

    Jesus would have disowned these people. He’d have told them that they are liars, children of the Father of Lies. I wish He were here to say that to them now, but I’m pretty sure they’d simply ignore Him, too.

  3. Jack Chick is not the only one endlessly repeating the same old clunkers.

    “As for socialism, the very concept is contrary to evolution”
    One word: ants. The most successfull one being this species:


    To which I happily add, as a reminder, that according to his understanding of socialism (something DaveL typically neglects again – he prefers to only attack me about the right definition) our dear SC himself is a socialist when it comes to the Pentagon and armed forces. Because more than half a century ago a big fan of nuclear bombs (a general fired by Eisenhower for it) supported it or something.

    “Some might believe in an eternal system of reincarnation”
    Reincarnation requires dualism – an immaterial soul (or whatever you prefer to call it) that hops from one physical body to another. Atheists are not likely to accept that. But atheists being no more consistent than theists there are probably a few indeed.
    There is a link between atheism and acceptation of evolution theory: the first increases the probability of the second. Creationists being incurable liars turn this into evolution theory causes atheism.

  4. Eddie Janssen

    I am curious how capitalists expect capitalism to evolve over the next 100, 200 years. How about five super companies that govern the world, national governments standing powerless at the sidelines?

  5. Dave Luckett

    FrankB, if you were to read my last post on the subject, you would know that I am willing to allow you to be Humpty-Dumpty and define socialism however you like, although I would like you to say what that definition is. The most you have said is that voluntary co-operatives with some unexplained means of co-ordination would be socialism, and you implied that you think that Iceland’s economy is socialist.

    Since I have no objection to either, except for practical considerations of how it would actually work, and I discern in it no threat to my liberty, rights or property, I have no difficulty in accepting that. But the moment I hear that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be placed and remain in common ownership, watch my back go up. That idea has already been implemented over the dead bodies of a hundred million people, and it would be over mine, too.

    Eddie Janssen: I doubt that scenario. As a corporation gets larger, the proportion of its productive employees gets smaller. The larger the corporation, the less incentive to innovate, because of the amount of investment in the status quo. I think gigacorporations such as you posit would be too inefficent and sclerotic to survive.

    But the main objection is that corporations would have to become governments, with all the coercive powers of government. Why don’t five governments govern the world, then? I’d say culture prevents it.

    How would I expect capitalism to evolve? I don’t pretend to know, and I wouldn’t like to guess. As a wild-ass conjecture, I would have thought that the quick recourse to a worldwide investment marketplace such as is afforded by the net would allow quicker uptake of good commercial ideas, more flexibility, more agility. But what would I know?

    I thought that having access to everything ever written, and immediate interaction with everybody interested in an idea, would produce stronger consensus. Boy, was I ever wrong. I catastrophically underestimated human tribalism. The world is more divided into opposed factions than ever. I almost said “warring camps”, but that would be an overstatement. I hope that continues.

  6. Theodore J Lawry

    I noticed that the comic they were selling was from 2007, an attempt to recycle Jack Chick’s corpus, or perhaps his corpse. Sad as Chick was, they can’t find anyone to replace him. As Trump would say: “Losers, sad”