Art as Propaganda for Evolution

CEH ^ | April 10, 2009

[tacticalogic]

Accurate? Who cares? What matter is the narrative.

Do you have the same objections to religious imagery?

[TET1968]

There may be something to this.
Yesterday I was in a Swiss chocolate store, buying up some bunnies when I noticed a chocolate monkey head that looked exactly like a face that's been on the cover of Time Magazine a zillion times.

This was not a racist cartoon depiction like the media cartoons depicting George W. as a simian.

The mold for this Monkey face was classical, probably over a hundred years old.

Maybe the movie “Planet of The Apes” was spot on.

[GodGunsGuts]

If it is a faithful representation of the biblical narrative...of course not. But I cannot say the same about Darwin/Haekel’s “tree of life.”

[tacticalogic]

Would you consider Michaelangelo's Creation a "faithful representation of biblical narrative, do you still have that cartoon of the scientist-as-burglar?

[GodGunsGuts]

The cartoon of a “scientist” as burglar is meant to be humorous. However, like all good humor, there is an element of truth to it.

[tacticalogic]

The cartoon of a “scientist” as burglar is meant to be humorous. However, like all good humor, there is an element of truth to it.

The element is implied to be the whole periodic table.

[GodGunsGuts]

And speaking of Michaelangelo's Creation, do you really believe that his depiction of the same was meant to convey something literal, or the biblical concept that man was made in God's image?

[tacticalogic]

The cartoon of a “scientist” as burglar is meant to be humorous. However, like all good humor, there is an element of truth to it.

Okay, so either there's no attempt to provoke any kind of "moral outrage" directed towards them, or "moral outrage" can be funny.

[GodGunsGuts]

You mean this one?

[tacticalogic]

And speaking of Michaelangelo's Creation, do you really believe that his depiction of the same was meant to convey something literal, or the biblical concept that man was made in God's image?

I'm asking if you think that it's OK that it isn't literally accurate, but simply provides narrative.

[bert]

Is this art?

[tacticalogic]

That’s the one!

[GodGunsGuts]

Christians should be morally outraged by Darwin’s attempt to replace God with materialist religion. However, the cartoon assumes the outrage, and is instead going for laughs. That’s why it is called humor.

[Poison Pill]

Haeckel’s drawings can be found in most current biology textbooks.

Really? You can name a current College intro text that use these with a scientific cite and not in a "curiosity of yesteryear" kind of way?

Stephen Jay Gould, one of evolutionary theory’s most vocal proponents, recently wrote

why it is only now that Mr. Gould, who has known of these forgeries for decades, has decided to bring them to widespread attention.

Recently wrote?...Only now? Did the Discovery Institute hold a seance to reach him in the Great Beyond? The man's been dead for nearly a decade.

[tacticalogic]

Christians should be morally outraged by Darwin’s attempt to replace God with materialist religion. However, the cartoon assumes the outrage, and is instead going for laughs. That’s why it is called humor.

Kind of "preaching to the choir", and getting everything in a "right-brain" context?

[GodGunsGuts]

Yes, and it is an accurate representation of what the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism believes, while at the same time identifying what they consider to be the main enemy of their Evo-religion--Christianity.

[GodGunsGuts]

What do Modern Textbooks Really Say about Haeckel’s Embryos?

http://www.discovery.org/a/3935

[GodGunsGuts]

Here is your original question: “Why are you bothering to complain about someone who did the bulk of his work over 100 years ago and who hasn’t been cited in a biology text for nearly as long?”

As you can see above, you are CLEARLY WRONG.

[Poison Pill]

Your cited article begins:

To avoid confusion, let me point out that we are not claiming that Haeckel's embryo drawings and recapitulation theory are the bedrock of evolutionary biology in 2007.

Not exactly their best foot forward. Basically they're saying their argument doesn't have much merit.

Still wondering what's up with the recent writing of the dead Mr. Gould.

[Poison Pill]

By the way, why do they call it the “Discovery Institute”? Can you tell me what discovery they have ever made?