For example, none of the fields of science he mentions in his 'cartoon' are in any way dependant on the existence/ proof of the theory of evolution. They are all stand-alone fields of scientific endeavor with fundamental underpinnings in the scientific method.
In my life, as an active researcher in Chemistry and Physics, science is just man's effort to understand what God hath wrought. The only people I see rejecting God in favor of what they call 'science' are those whose ego cannot stand the thought of a being superior to themselves.
I, no doubt, have a much more limited science background than you, but it is much stronger that most. I have graduate courses in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, pharmacology and a smackarale (sp?) of physics. Undergraduate courses in Chemistry, biochemistry, physiology, anatomy, microbiology etc.
That being said, the more more I learn of the inner workings of the cell. The harder time I have even just contemplating that it was all just an accident.
He didn't say that they were. You have his point backwards. He says that the evidences for evolution are dependent upon *those* fields -- not vice versa. For just one example, creationists often choose to reject the well-established field of radiometric dating because it gives results that tend to disprove classic creationism, and confirm evolution.
They are all stand-alone fields of scientific endeavor with fundamental underpinnings in the scientific method.
No field is truly "standalone" -- they all rely findings from at least some other fields. Try understanding geology without physics (of floods and erosion and plate tectonics, etc.), for example.
In my life, as an active researcher in Chemistry and Physics, science is just man's effort to understand what God hath wrought. The only people I see rejecting God in favor of what they call 'science' are those whose ego cannot stand the thought of a being superior to themselves.
You don't have to "reject God" to note that evidence points heavily towards evolution. The old canard that a rejection of God drives any significant amount of evolutionary belief is a cheap shot, and untrue.
But it's something that creationists often try to console themselves with -- it's more comfortable to believe that the widespread acceptance of evolution in the scientific community is based on some sort of idealist blindness than that it's based on the wealth of the evidence.