by 
Cartoonists should stick to trying to make people laugh instead of pretending they are scientists. In Sunday’s Doonesbury comic, the cartoonists once again misrepresents Creationist Understanding.
The comic (which you can click on to get the full sized version) depicts a doctor who is giving a diagnosis to someone who believes in Creation. The patient has some form of TB, and the punch line is that the doctor says that he can treat the patient with a series of antibiotics that take into account what the strain of TB has “evolved” into, or give him the basic set that was developed earlier. It depicts the patient as wavering in his views. What it really shows is the fact that the cartoonist really doesn’t know the subject he is lampooning very well (except maybe only superficially).
Creationists, for the record, do not disagree that a specific strain of virus can become resistant to certain treatments, but disagree as to the cause. Creationists believe that the resistance is because of a loss of genetic information, not a gain. It’s not like the virus adapted, but natural selection eliminated those virii that were not immune (because of a defect) and left those that are immune. These are actually weaker virii and it’s just because their receptors are no longer there.
Creationists don’t question whether natural selection is there, but they do not believe that natural selection caused everything you see today. This is a major point. Creationists believe that speciation happened through natural selection, so what you see today is natural selection creating different species within a given kind.
This is something I find hard to wrap my head around.
How can one selectively believe in evolution and speciation? If you believe in evolution, then you cannot simply accept certain traits of it and reject other parts because it clashes with your religious views. If you truely believe in evolution, then evolution states that man evolved from the ape. If you don’t believe that, then you cannot believe in the evolution or natural selection of any other species or you are ignoring what you dont agree with and rejecting the same valid scientific evidence of equivocable situations. You would have to accept the view that no “special creation” came into play when creating humans because according to evolution, humans were never “created” in a Biblical sense.
Perhaps you can shed some light on this distinction for me? 🙂
Also, don’t the vast majority of Creationists believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old despite rock hard (excuse the pun) evidence of fossils that are carbon-dated and proven to be far, far older?
Where true science is concerned (ie. testable, reproducable results) Christians do not have a problem with Science. It is when Evolutionists try to say that as things are so they’ve always been is where we begin to have problems.
Science cannot say what was at the beginning no more than it can truly say with authority about much in the past– it’s usually a study in history. That’s really where this debate lies. There is no evidence that is concrete proof evolution is true. There are pieces of evidence all around, but your interpretation of said evidence according to your worldview.
Creationists believe that the differences within a species were made by natural selection, with a loss of information. We do not believe that you can find one kind of animal turning into another kind.
Carbon Dating has proven inaccurate in some testing of things of known dates. Some things that were alive were tested and show to be dead for years. And then there is the matter of things that he have a historical date for it and the carbon says differently. Also there’s the question of reaction to atmosphere.