This strip was written by David Cody Cook of Cody’s Black Box. Props to the DCC.

This is probably not the optimal comic to follow my Calamities of Nature parody, as you might well accuse me of doing here with Independent Music James what Tony Piro does with Aaron the mole. And it’s anyone’s guess how much mileage you’ll get out of the main joke if you don’t already find Dawkins’ argument laughable. Neither am I exonerated by having a guest writer on this one–I did, after all, deem the script inkworthy and commit it to paperthe internet. Hopefully you’re at least amused by my parody of this picture.

Here is Dawkins’ basic argument from The God Delusion, 2nd ed, pp. 188-189:

“1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself…

3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable…

4. The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability, and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings…

5. We don’t have an equivalent explanation for physics…

6. We should not give up the hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying crane to match the biological one, the relatively weak cranes we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self defeating skyhook hypothesis of an intelligent designer.”

It honestly blows my mind that he would as much as admit that the world looks designed, then turn around and say that the best explanation for these appearances is anything but “there is a designer.” Does this strike you as weird?