Art as Propaganda for Evolution

CEH ^ | April 10, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[chuck_the_tv_out]

e.g. a visualization of a pig's tooth:

[chuck_the_tv_out]

Another one that really annoys me is the animation of a meteorite hitting, and dinosaurs running away, and being killed by the blast. It’s such nonsense, but people see that, and it sticks, idiomatically, in their mind, because there is currently a vacuum in that place.

[Psycho_Bunny]

lol

[tacticalogic]

I’m reminded of an exchange I had a while back about posting graphics as an argument.......

[GodGunsGuts]

Here's some more illustrations by Darwinian demagogue and racist, Haekel:

[GodGunsGuts]

What chaps my hide is that they create these images, even though in many cases they know they are false, or at best extremely speculative.

[GodGunsGuts]

I'm not sure what you are referring to. But there is a big difference between using a graphic to illustrate, and using a graphic for propaganda purposes. You can also use a graphic as evidence, such as the graphic I posted above illustrating the overt racism of Darwin propagandist, Earnst Haekel.

[tacticalogic]

One man's "illustration" is another man's "propaganda".

My disagreement with using them in a debate is that I consider it a coward's tactic. You don't have to defend what you're saying if you never really said anything.

[GodGunsGuts]

That makes no sense at all. Is showing the images of the dead bodies piled up at Auschwitz to a Holocaust denier taking the cowards way out?

[tacticalogic]

That makes no sense at all. Is showing the images of the dead bodies piled up at Auschwitz to a Holocaust denier taking the cowards way out?

No.

Showing that same picture in a different context, with the intent of implicitly accusing someone of being complicit or responsible but not being will to come right out and say so would be.

[GodGunsGuts]

Well good, that settles it then. I came right out and said that Haekel was a full-on racist.

[tacticalogic]

Well good, that settles it then. I came right out and said that Haekel was a full-on racist.

That's fine.

Do you agree with the author's assesment that the use of images is used to evoke an emotional response, rather than present a reasoned argument?

[count-your-change]

Visualization is of enormous importance in the propaganda of Darwinism.
We need only consider Darwin's tree. Visually the connections from primitive organisms to more complicated ones is immediately obvious as the connection of a tree limb to its trunk. Whether the connections actually exist is irrelevant, the image remains.
And that tree-like propaganda device is repeated over and over again with everything from purported human skulls to the ancestors of the modern horse without questioning whether there is anything between the tips of the limbs and the trunk besides the imagination of the illustrator.

““....some [artists] wrongly took it [evolution] as justification to elevate whites over other races,..”

But that is precisely what Darwinism teaches, that the dark skinned, ape-like ancestors of modern man came out of Africa and evolved into the lighter skinned races,(think Englishmen of the 19th century).

And the propaganda by poster art goes on: Lucy, peppered moths, animal embryos, feathered dinosaurs, auto insurance “cavemen”, etc.

Accurate? Who cares? What matter is the narrative.

[Poison Pill]

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?

[GodGunsGuts]

Yes, images can be misused in that way. However, some images, if they speak to some deep moral outrage, would be less than accurate if they failed to produce an emotional response. It all depends on the context. For instance, an image or images that produce a strong negative emotional response by showing a partial birth abortion procedure would be more accurate than a set of images that fail to produce the same. Again, it all depends on the context.

[GodGunsGuts]

Yet some version of Haeckel’s drawings can
be found in most current biology textbooks. Stephen
Jay Gould, one of evolutionary theory’s most
vocal proponents, recently wrote that we should be
“astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless
recycling that has led to the persistence of these
drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of
modern textbooks.” (I will return below to the question
of why it is only now that Mr. Gould, who has
known of these forgeries for decades, has decided to
bring them to widespread attention.)

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

[GodGunsGuts]

Tell that to TL!

[tacticalogic]

Yes, images can be misused in that way. However, some images, if they speak to some deep moral outrage, would be less than accurate if they failed to produce an emotional response. It all depends on the context. For instance, an image or images that produce a strong negative emotional response by showing a partial birth abortion procedure would be more accurate than a set of images that fail to produce the same. Again, it all depends on the context.

Again, the ability of the images to produce the emotional response is not in question. The context in which they are used and how they attempt to manipulate peoply by using that response is.