Justin, Justin, Justin… what are we going to do with you?! This may stand as the biggest mistake you’ve ever made in the history of your cartoonist career. You’re writing as if you haven’t the faintest idea about who believes what and why (and so far, you have at least one reader who seems about as clueless), whether there is any validity to any of those claims, or who is actually raising the skepticism and why.Well, part of my profession day-to-day is finding out who believes what and why about such things, when necessary. People aren’t all of a piece on any one of these issues and lumping the people and the issues together like this (even through the lips of such a total airhead as Boody) is almost criminal. I’m honestly shocked that you would stoop so low.It would take an essay to go through Boody’s allegations but I’ll just limit myself to two. Most people who are accused of objecting to “science” aren’t objecting to anything of the kind. They object, and rightly so, to the philosophical stances of scientism and naturalism being put forward as if they were one and the same thing, or else logically demanded by, the discipline of natural science. The truth is quite otherwise and always has been . Natural science points to intelligent design and special creation via Occam’s Razor, although not 6,000 years ago (something the Bible doesn’t say either, in fact – but you have to know Biblical Hebrew very well to demonstrate why the mistranslations exist).The other thing I’ll mention here has to do with radiometric dating. There are good scientific reasons to be skeptical of it and there are die-hard evolutionists as well as creationists who are so accordingly. But have you ever heard of “confirmation bias”? It’s a very real concern in the scientific community and it happens to be rampant when it comes to anything challenging the predominant worldview of scientism/naturalism/evolutionism. Even evolutionists can’t get contrarian evidence published save on rare occasions and they’re criticized even when they do.
science is science.religion is religion.they are not compatible.one is based on faith,the other is based on observation.you can not have faith in a chemical reaction.you can not observe god.trying to insert faith into the science of repeated observation of nature and analytical deduction is like using a ouija board as an abacus.it wont work.there.now i will get off of my soapbox.and i will not get back on. (at least no today.)
Actually, for what it’s worth, recent public opinion surveys indicate that people who identify themselves as “conservative” do, in fact, tend to distrust science in general, and scientists and intellectuals in particular. This tendency is stronger for those self-identified conservatives with relatively less education and income..No, I’m not making a political statement — only reporting. Make of it what you like.
I just tuned in to see what a ridiculous debacle this thread has become. I’m completely mortified. Hey, Alain Harper, Alain Harper, Alain Harper; Do you save the condescension of repeating a person’s name three times when you write to them for really special and important times like this or do you just do that for everybody??? BYE! You shouldn’t be allowed to read anymore, if you can’t understand that this is just a light comic strip then you are part of the problem of people taking EVERYTHING too seriously. Has the 24 hour news cycle done this to us? I’m curious.It can be argued that, if I am taking a position at all, I am siding with both points of view here so that I WOULDN’T be attacked. Boody has a point of view but what he is making fun of actually becomes true in his world. Get it? It’s a world made up of things that people believe. It’s big and it changes. Like humanity.Honestly, it’s days and moments like this that make me want to junk the whole damn thing. I would delete the offending post but there are so many replies that nothing would make sense here so I have to leave it alone.I just hope that humorless, three-name-repeating (that really pissed me off) people just decide to move on if my cartoon is so horribly offensive.How silly.
Ya know, I was just fine ignoring the whole set of comments run until I read mytickle’s rather mean spirited rejoinder. If that’s the artist’s response to someone who criticizes him, I don’t need to support this strip. Plonk, off my read list. Bye.
I think it’s fantastic that a single comic strip can open the doors to debate this way. I think I’ll limit my comment to the actual comic itself. Well done, Justin! Can’t wait to see where this is going! :)
I do think having this kind of dialogue in the strip does leave you wide open to attacks like this… surely you didn’t think at least some people wouldn’t be offended by it, even if the last panel is meant to balance things out. Is this the original dialogue that setup the storyline the first time around or has it been updated?
Sorry I went off yesterday but I had the worst day of my life. Usually after something like that the thing to say is “that’s not a good excuse” but,… it actually is.
i understand that no one is going to see this, but i am going to say it anyway._there is no room on science for faith.if you can find a meeting place in you were science an your personal faith can coexist, fine. that is a wonderfull thing for you. but that is not what i was saying.in the scientific process of investigation, faith does not work.repeated observation, and critical analysis of FACT are the hallmark of science. rejecting fact becouse it does not fit your faith is not science. its rhetoric.all since is based on fact. if you don’t like the fact, it doesn’t make it any less a fact.your faith in deities and an afterlife, and your personal relationship with god, are part of you, and not subject to the scrutiny of scientific observation.faith has no place in science, just as science has no bearing on faith.
I love religions, I love science, my passion is studying them both and their place in history and I try to marry those interests in this cartoon. Not everyone is going to get it, and that’s fine. I’m OK with that. In fact I kind of like that.I just sort of flip out at condescending attitudes preached from a higher rock than mine and suddenly I’m unprofessional before I know what’s happening.
Kirokithikis about 12 years ago
use those wings and fly
Rakkav about 12 years ago
Justin, Justin, Justin… what are we going to do with you?! This may stand as the biggest mistake you’ve ever made in the history of your cartoonist career. You’re writing as if you haven’t the faintest idea about who believes what and why (and so far, you have at least one reader who seems about as clueless), whether there is any validity to any of those claims, or who is actually raising the skepticism and why.Well, part of my profession day-to-day is finding out who believes what and why about such things, when necessary. People aren’t all of a piece on any one of these issues and lumping the people and the issues together like this (even through the lips of such a total airhead as Boody) is almost criminal. I’m honestly shocked that you would stoop so low.It would take an essay to go through Boody’s allegations but I’ll just limit myself to two. Most people who are accused of objecting to “science” aren’t objecting to anything of the kind. They object, and rightly so, to the philosophical stances of scientism and naturalism being put forward as if they were one and the same thing, or else logically demanded by, the discipline of natural science. The truth is quite otherwise and always has been . Natural science points to intelligent design and special creation via Occam’s Razor, although not 6,000 years ago (something the Bible doesn’t say either, in fact – but you have to know Biblical Hebrew very well to demonstrate why the mistranslations exist).The other thing I’ll mention here has to do with radiometric dating. There are good scientific reasons to be skeptical of it and there are die-hard evolutionists as well as creationists who are so accordingly. But have you ever heard of “confirmation bias”? It’s a very real concern in the scientific community and it happens to be rampant when it comes to anything challenging the predominant worldview of scientism/naturalism/evolutionism. Even evolutionists can’t get contrarian evidence published save on rare occasions and they’re criticized even when they do.
celeconecca about 12 years ago
he really mythed his footing – guess he did fall for a myth
mntim about 12 years ago
I don’t read comics because I’m hoping to come across a dissertation.
reverence about 12 years ago
I’m with you Celecca.Loving this storyline, Justin but it looks like it may be a bumpy ride…..
Happy, happy, happy!!! Premium Member about 12 years ago
science is science.religion is religion.they are not compatible.one is based on faith,the other is based on observation.you can not have faith in a chemical reaction.you can not observe god.trying to insert faith into the science of repeated observation of nature and analytical deduction is like using a ouija board as an abacus.it wont work.there.now i will get off of my soapbox.and i will not get back on. (at least no today.)
PShaw0423 about 12 years ago
Actually, for what it’s worth, recent public opinion surveys indicate that people who identify themselves as “conservative” do, in fact, tend to distrust science in general, and scientists and intellectuals in particular. This tendency is stronger for those self-identified conservatives with relatively less education and income..No, I’m not making a political statement — only reporting. Make of it what you like.
Justin Thompson creator about 12 years ago
I just tuned in to see what a ridiculous debacle this thread has become. I’m completely mortified. Hey, Alain Harper, Alain Harper, Alain Harper; Do you save the condescension of repeating a person’s name three times when you write to them for really special and important times like this or do you just do that for everybody??? BYE! You shouldn’t be allowed to read anymore, if you can’t understand that this is just a light comic strip then you are part of the problem of people taking EVERYTHING too seriously. Has the 24 hour news cycle done this to us? I’m curious.It can be argued that, if I am taking a position at all, I am siding with both points of view here so that I WOULDN’T be attacked. Boody has a point of view but what he is making fun of actually becomes true in his world. Get it? It’s a world made up of things that people believe. It’s big and it changes. Like humanity.Honestly, it’s days and moments like this that make me want to junk the whole damn thing. I would delete the offending post but there are so many replies that nothing would make sense here so I have to leave it alone.I just hope that humorless, three-name-repeating (that really pissed me off) people just decide to move on if my cartoon is so horribly offensive.How silly.
Justin Thompson creator about 12 years ago
No problems here, @noicantspell (happy,happy! joy,joy!).
The Life I Draw Upon about 12 years ago
I think Brody hit the nail on the head. Thanks Justin.
Anweir88 about 12 years ago
Ya know, I was just fine ignoring the whole set of comments run until I read mytickle’s rather mean spirited rejoinder. If that’s the artist’s response to someone who criticizes him, I don’t need to support this strip. Plonk, off my read list. Bye.
Happy, happy, happy!!! Premium Member about 12 years ago
bye…
Chanticleer about 12 years ago
I think it’s fantastic that a single comic strip can open the doors to debate this way. I think I’ll limit my comment to the actual comic itself. Well done, Justin! Can’t wait to see where this is going! :)
mntim about 12 years ago
I went to a comic strip and a great big, long, boring, off-topic, mostly-wrong discussion broke out. And it didn’t change anyone’s mind.
Xane_T about 12 years ago
I do think having this kind of dialogue in the strip does leave you wide open to attacks like this… surely you didn’t think at least some people wouldn’t be offended by it, even if the last panel is meant to balance things out. Is this the original dialogue that setup the storyline the first time around or has it been updated?
dhicks0559 about 12 years ago
Lemmings
Justin Thompson creator about 12 years ago
same as before.
Justin Thompson creator about 12 years ago
Sorry I went off yesterday but I had the worst day of my life. Usually after something like that the thing to say is “that’s not a good excuse” but,… it actually is.
Happy, happy, happy!!! Premium Member about 12 years ago
i understand that no one is going to see this, but i am going to say it anyway._there is no room on science for faith.if you can find a meeting place in you were science an your personal faith can coexist, fine. that is a wonderfull thing for you. but that is not what i was saying.in the scientific process of investigation, faith does not work.repeated observation, and critical analysis of FACT are the hallmark of science. rejecting fact becouse it does not fit your faith is not science. its rhetoric.all since is based on fact. if you don’t like the fact, it doesn’t make it any less a fact.your faith in deities and an afterlife, and your personal relationship with god, are part of you, and not subject to the scrutiny of scientific observation.faith has no place in science, just as science has no bearing on faith.
mntim about 12 years ago
I bugs me when someone’s on my side and still only half right.
Justin Thompson creator about 12 years ago
I love religions, I love science, my passion is studying them both and their place in history and I try to marry those interests in this cartoon. Not everyone is going to get it, and that’s fine. I’m OK with that. In fact I kind of like that.I just sort of flip out at condescending attitudes preached from a higher rock than mine and suddenly I’m unprofessional before I know what’s happening.