The Doonesbury Deception

This past Sunday, I took time to read the comic strip, Doonesbury. Garry Trudeau has kept the strip going for over 40 years, which says something about its popularity. Some papers post it on their editorial page, as Trudeau keeps it to a predictable liberal viewpoint.

Guess which groups Sunday’s issue ridiculed: a) Christians, b) creationists, c) the State of Louisiana, d) God, e) the Bible, f) all of the above.

If you guessed f), move to the head of the class. Yep, Trudeau takes full advantage of his cartoonist’s role to disrespect anyone he chooses and get away with it. The first frame shows high school science teacher Stiller telling his class: “So all the evidence massively supports a theory of evolution that knits together everything we know about biology.”

In the second frame, the teacher continues, “However, as high school science students in the State of Louisiana, you are entitled to learn an alternative theory supported by no scientific evidence whatsoever.” Succeeding panels have Mr. Stiller tossing out half-truths which are supposed to represent the Biblical view of creation. They are stated in terms designed to make Christians to be—take your pick: 1) anti-science, 2) non-thinking boobs, 3) bad people, 4) hypocritical, and 5) followers of a capricious, evil, and uncaring God. Yes, if you’re a Christian who accepts the Bible as inerrant, Trudeau caricatures you as fitting all those categories.

You can read the September 16 strip at: . Actually, you could have read the exact same strip in The Sunday Oregonian on July 10, 2011. Evidently Mr. Trudeau was so pleased with his effort that he re-cycled it. Who knows how many times he used it before? Of course, that’s consistent with previous attempts by evolutionists to fool an unsuspecting public.

You have to admit, Mr. Trudeau is talented, smart, and hip. In this case, though, he’s the hypocrite. He posits evolution as supported by “all the evidence,” but speaking through Mr. Stiller, he offers not a shred of evidence. The reason? There is none.

No transitional forms. Evolution is not science; it is if anything, the religion of atheism so its adherents can have an alternative to the God of the Universe. It shouldn’t be forgotten that the Christian church is the home of the scientific method.

Evolutionists don’t want alternative viewpoints presented in the classroom; otherwise, they would be expected to defend their theory. For that is all it is—a theory that you and I came from pond slime in the randomness of natural selection.

Now that is anti-science.




About samuelehall

A follower of Jesus, husband, father of 3 adult children, writer and learner.
This entry was posted in The Reality of God and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to The Doonesbury Deception

  1. Jerry says:

    As they say, “I used to be a scientist on TV.” I gave it up for real life. I can’t go far defending scientists on their findings and/or conclusions. Nor can I go far defending creationists on some of their findings and/or conclusions. I’ll send a posting later in that regard.

  2. Stan Baldwin says:

    I generally feel that we ought not write or speak dogmatically in fields where we are unlearned. If we do feel a need to so speak or write, we ought at least to be tentative and restrained in our comments. Otherwise we are likely to embarrass ourselves and our views. Since I find that men of science and men of faith include both evolutionists and anti-evolutionists, I am not qualified to denigrate either party. I do think also that in criticizing what anyone writes or says on any topic, we must scrupulously avoid misrepresenting what they say.

    • samuelehall says:

      Thank you, Stan, for your words of caution. I believe you have my best interests at heart and are trying to protect me from myself. For that, I am grateful.
      I am not a scientist, which is evident. However, Bible-believing scientists risk their careers if they even give a hint that they do not accept the evolution story. So–you won’t find many of them speaking up about creation or even mentioning God. This is not speculation. I refer to Sarah’s comments about Ben Stein’s documentary, Expelled. Stein (who is Jewish) shows case after case of academics and research scientists who lost their jobs or were denied tenure if they disagreed with the Darwinists. I suggest you take the time to review that documentary. In case you hadn’t noticed, Christian scientists, researchers, and educators have been marginalized, denied tenure, or were fired well before Expelled was released.
      I don’t see myself as the Great Defender of scientists. However, I am willing to risk personal embarrassment to at least speak out against the snarkey dismissal of those who accept the biblical record of creation. Why should Mr. Trudeau get a pass? Nor do I compare myself with the Apostle Peter (an unlearned fisherman), but was he tentative in his Acts 2 declaration of the risen Christ?
      As I see it, Trudeau’s comic strip was another blow struck against God’s word. All in fun, of course.

  3. Jerry says:

    The Jewish people were closer to the creation events than the Christians were, it seems, which led me to consider their creation interpretation. They were up and running before we Christians could tie our shoes. So, I would invite you to read the following excerpt from a website article as a Biblical creation interpretation from the Jewish community. Also, see the link below the excerpt.

    “Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch (19th century Germany) further explains that each “Day” represents a specific stage of creation – i.e. a mingling of raw materials and bursts of dramatic new development. As you go through the Torah’s account, you see described a gradual process from simple to more complex organisms – first a mass of swirling gasses, then water, then the emergence of dry land, followed by plants, fish, birds, animals, and finally, human beings. This pattern may be similar to the evolutionary process proposed by science.”

    The next paragraph in the article indicates that God “blew into Adam the spiritual soul” when Adam was created in the chain of events. If the Biblical creation story is included in the classroom, the Jewish interpretation needs to be alongside the Christian interpretation.

    • Herb Hofmann says:

      Actually Jerry, theistic evolution has been popular in both Jewish and Christian circles since Darwin proposed his “theory.” Science, which found credibility due to Christian diligence in seeking to learn more about God’s creation, was held in such high esteem during Darwin’s time that it became very difficult for some Christian and Jewish leaders to stand up for the truth of Scripture. One of the major flaws in the Day-age view of the creation story is the very wording of Genesis 1- “So the evening and the morning were the first day.” Literally it reads, “And evening was, and morning was, a day, one.” This phrase is used for all six days of creation. Rabbi Hirsch’s alternate interpretation is very elegant, but it flies fully in the face of the plain reading of Scripture.

      Another very serious flaw in the Day-age theory is what is says of God. Death did not exist until Adam’s sin. Our sin is the cause of all the death and destruction in the world. If you adhere to the Day-age theory, You have to lay eons of death at the feet of God. I would shudder to do such a thing!

  4. Are you familiar with Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled? It takes on the unfortunate resistance of the scientific community to allow academics to bring up alternative viewpoints that call into question widely accepted scientific theories. Ultimately the documentary asks the larger question of why the scientific community would resist the asking of questions (which of course drives scientific discovery), but Stein focuses on the evolution vs intelligent design argument and handles it with a great deal of grace. Definitely worth viewing, no matter which side of this particular issue you may find yourself. Personally, I tend to agree with Alison that God and Darwin can happily coexist.

    • samuelehall says:

      Thanks, Sarah, for your gracious response.
      A zoology degree—excellent credentials. However, in your comments, you’ve noted a couple of reasons to question the objectivity of science curricula in American colleges and universities: 1) Your comment noted the “classes that promote evolutionary theory.” Well put. Educators should be objective but the bias shows through.
      2) Your afore-mentioned Ben Stein documentary, Expelled. The bias against any view of origins outside that of evolution should have raised questions. If naturalists are so certain, why don’t they allow alternatives and then smash them with the crushing truth of evolution? Sounds like they’re afraid of something. Like maybe the truth. Perhaps you haven’t heard that evolutionists almost never debate creationists anymore—the evolutionists were getting crushed!
      Following are two websites which show some of the problems evolutionists face:
      The latter website exposes another evolutionist fraud. Folks from National Geographic got egg on their face from that one!
      To put a fine point on it, we could say that evolution tales are pseudo-scientific stories about an imaginary history. Evolution itself is best understood as an anti-God origins myth, attempting to explain man’s existence without a Creator.
      For more information, please see Herb Hofmann’s two comments–just received.

      • Not trying to pick a fight here, Sam, but if your argument is that I need to consider the source than how are articles from the “Institute for Creation Research” supposed to further that. Remember, though I have a BS in zoology, I also have an MA in literature and creative writing, and while earning it I taught rhetoric. Sorry, had to push the credentials since they seem imprtant to you.
        In what way does a fraudulent fossil prove that dinosaurs didn’t eveolve into birds? The answer is that it doesn’t. And the assertion that we can’t see evolution in action is completley false. We do see adaptation in action all throughout nature within relatively short time periods.Behavioral adaptation is the best way to observe it in larger organisms. For example, humans have encroached upon the natural habitat of the racoon. The racoon has now become incredibly succcessful eating cast-offs from humans, something they never did before. Some species don’t adapt to similar scenarios and become extinct. On a smaller, but more dramatic scale, take bacteria. These little critters have been adapting for a lot of years, becoming resistent to various antibiotics and completely altering their genetic code to become different bacteria strains altogether. Think it doesn’t happen in the human species? Why is our appendix (which we don’t use, yet still have) on average smaller than it was in our recent ancestors?
        Now it’s not species to species transformation and please don’t think that I am saying that just because microevolution occurs, that validates macroevolution theory. I’m just pointing out that the perspective of your sources should be as subjected to critical thinking as should mine. I will say too, that in my experience I have never had a biology/zoology professor refuse to acknowledge Intelligent Design Theory (and yes, I went to a state university) and, in fact, a number of my professors, I knew to be Christian. I recognize that I may have had a pretty fortunate and unique experience in that, and I mentioned Ben Stein’s Expelled because I agree with him (and you) that scientists should not limit the types of questions allowed to be asked as that only limits our understanding of the Universe. But I mention my unique experience because I still think this argument has gone into unnecessary places. I am convinced that it is possible to study science and believe in the God who designed it in the first place, and continually directs it. For the record, I do not believe that humans are descended from our ape “cousins.” I think there can be no question, though, that God used some of the same blueprints for life over and over again in His changing and dynamic system of creation and in the process, He specially created man in his image in a way no other part of creation could claim.

      • samuelehall says:

        Good show, Sarah! Excellent info for us to chew on. Let me cherry-pick a few points: **I only ask for sources to separate out the wheat from the chaff, the feelings from the facts. I didn’t say a fraudulent fossil proves anything except that it’s not uncommon for the Darwinists to try to con the public, including preventing creationism or even intelligent design from getting a hearing in the university classroom. It’s like evolution is a religion.
        **To interject a comment about transitional forms … As Michael Behe, biochemist and author of “Darwin’s Black Box,” explains, even a mechanism as simple as a three-part mousetrap requires all three parts to be working together at once. Otherwise, you don’t get a mousetrap that catches half as many mice–and thus might win a survival of the fittest competition–you don’t get a mousetrap at all.
        **Umm, do you think adaptation is evolution?
        **The appendix? To this point, researchers haven’t found its function. They used to say that the spleen was evidence for “poor design by God.”
        **Not sure what you mean that this discussion has gone into unnecessary places …
        **Science and God? Absolutely! Some complain the Bible uses terms that are clearly wrong; however, when we speak of sunrise, we often say–incorrectly, of course–“Look, the sun is coming up.”
        **Glad to hear your cousins didn’t descend from the apes. Some of my forebears have severely undistinguished pedigrees but I am proud to say that none of them hopped up from pond scum, either.
        **Your last sentence is most intriguing. I cannot disagree with it altho I don’t understand all of it.

      • Okay, Sam. One last comment and then you can have the last word since it’s your blog and all. I don’t think we disagree that much except that I find evolutionary theory to be a worthwhile one that in no way challenges my understanding of God, or of Biblical truth. The only thing I’d really like to respond to is your question of whether or not I think evolution is adaptation. The answer is absolutely yes. Adaptation is the basis of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Lifeforms change and adapt to new stimuli and some adaptations are more successful than others. Because of this, the fittest survive, species change, and evolution occurs. That’s the crux of Darwin’s theory. If it’s true, and on a small scale it is irrefutable, then environmental pressure is the driving force, adaptation and genetic inheritance (which Darwin didn’t quite have figured out, though his grandfather Erasmus was close) is the mechanism and evolution is the result. Is that three parts? Perhaps we have a working mousetrap.
        But then I think you are really engaging in separate arguments here because intelligent design theory and Darwin’s evolutionary theory don’t really contradict. Stein points this out at the end of his documentary when he repeatedly asks the determined expert, “So then what caused that to happen?” Eventually what the “expert” is unwillingly left with is an Intelligent Designer. He thinks maybe aliens. Personally I think God is much more likely.
        Your original question, the one raised by the Doonsbury Strip, is basically: Are Christians just idiots because we won’t accept the obvious truth of whatever scientists want to feed us? The answer to that question is no. I think this thoughtful discussion is good evidence of that. In fact, I think an unwillingness to consider all the pertinent questions is always a better indication of idiocy. I never did care much for Doonsbury.

  5. Jim Noyes says:

    Sam, I appreciate your tactful dialogue with Jerry. Evolution theory is, as you pointed out, totally non-scientific. Thousands of scientists and educators believe the biblical account of creation. But many university and public school teachers and even some private school people,are quiet for fear of their jobs. Why? Because the liberal powers that be cause them to be fired if they even whisper creation fact–excuse me–theory. It’s the age old conflict that the false cannot stand up to the true, so truth is ridiculed, forbidden or killed. The supreme example is the crucified savior Jesus Christ. Most, with some exceptions, who criticize creationist theory have never read the Bible one time. How can they call themselves “educated?” Check it out. Truth does not fear examination. Jim N.

  6. Alison says:

    I think evolution and belief in god can co-exist. I am a true believer in evolution and a greater power beyond our comprehension. I took MANY science classes that detailed the proof that it did, indeed occur. The spark that set off our beginnings from “pond scum”–that’s where I think divine influence came into play.

  7. Jerry says:

    Thanks, Sam, for the thermodynamics document. Is this the primary scientist who serves as the creationist apologist? As a layperson without scientific credentials, I can’t argue well with this document, but my guess is that there are many scientists with findings to add to the argument. I suppose that my point regarding teaching Bible science in a public school may be that it is really teaching religion in the public school. If so, there probably are many religions with various creation stories to also teach in the public schools. Shall we teach them all? I personally feel that God’s creation story is not neutered by Darwin’s evolution facts or theories. God’s work is not that sensitive, I imagine. That’s my metaphoric spirit showing, apparently. I think that God would have us be better humans, now that we have been created in His own elegant way.

    • samuelehall says:

      Yes, Jerry, you’re probably thinking of the late Dr. Henry Morris. As you could guess, my academic background is very similar to yours so my scientific credentials are sparse. One thing I have learned is that scientific findings support the Bible, geology one of the most visible to the layman. That’s very important to know.
      I think you’re still afflicted by the evolutionary party line that a biblical view of creation means a dogmatic non-scientific explanation or origins. The Bible does not contradict verifiable scientific facts.
      Re the biblical creation story vs. Darwin’s evolution theories (there are no evolution “facts”), I will suggest a couple of conflicts: 1) If evolution is true, then our loving, just God allowed millions of years of death and misery (of animals and “evolving” man) before the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden. An aside: Sam Harris and other atheists paint the biblical God as mean, capricious, etc., because he caused the bloodshed recorded in the Old Testament. Not true. Those conflicts were as a result of the Fall–Adam’s choice to violate God’s one solitary prohibition. 2) Scripture has scores of references to God’s creation. Evolution, with its “natural selection” argument, essentially deifies nature as selection implies intelligence. Even Darwin didn’t grant unconscious nature that attribute.

  8. Jerry says:

    Those are good answers, I think. Your concern over Trudeau’s disrespecting your belief system reminds me of a novel that I have completed and one that I am reading now. The two are based on several of the same characters but at a slightly later time in life. The author is Chaim Potok and the names of the novels are The Chosen and The Promise. They illustrate the struggle between the more conservative Hasidic Jews and more modern reform Jews in Brooklyn during and after WWII.

    I personally believe that Biblical literalism locks a person into an ancient science with little opportunity for new scientific developments or discoveries. That was a problem with the Catholic Church and the discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo, don’t you think?

    • samuelehall says:

      Thanks, Jerry. Potok’s books have been around for decades and one day I hope to read them.
      Your concerns about biblical literalism are timely but, in my opinion, unfounded. I’ve sent you an email which might shed new light. If other readers wish to have a copy of that email, please email me. The writer brings up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, stated in nontechnical form, which says that all physical systems, if left to themselves, tend to become disorganized. Thus, machines wear out, processes run down, organisms get old and die. Any temporary increase in organization requires an input of energy from outside the system itself. Obviously, this contradicts the theory of evolution, which is based on growing complexity and organization.

    • Herb Hofmann says:

      Jerry, you use the phrase, “New scientific developments.” Actually, new scientific developments are causing a lot of angst in the anti-creation world. Two examples: First, a few years ago, a paleontologist found a tyrannosaurus rex bone that still had soft tissue inside of it. When she contacted her mentor, he refused to believe it. Date testing the bone proved “inconclusive.”
      Second, there is a scientific phenomenon called irreducible complexity. As we dig deeper
      into the atom, we are finding that it becomes more complex the more we look. Any
      change in it destroys it. This makes any positive mutation virtually impossible. Problems
      with evolutionary theory have caused some evolutionists to propose aliens as the best alternative to current theory.

  9. Jerry says:

    Do you think, Sam, that you at this moment in time could honestly believe what Trudeau believes as his world view? On the other hand, do you think that Trudeau could at this moment honestly believe as you believe?

    • samuelehall says:

      Interesting question, Jerry. To answer would be difficult, if not impossible, as I don’t know what Trudeau’s worldview is. I could only guess, based upon his comic strips.
      I wouldn’t be interested in pursuing what I see are offensive or dishonest characteristics. On the other hand, I admire his ability to smoke out hypocrisy and what I see are his attempts to stand up for the oppressed. He is selective in who he determines to be hypocritical. Likewise with the oppressed.
      Can Garry Trudeau believe that God created the universe and everything in it–including us–and that God sent his Son Jesus to die for our sins? Yes, he can, by the grace of God, if Trudeau humbles himself to acknowledge that God and not man is the measure of all things. I believe that because our God is a God of miracles. I shall pray for this deliverance for Garry Trudeau.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s