And the winners are …

Now that you’ve had a chance to see the Stick Science cartoon contest top ten entries, it’s time to announce the winners! Our celebrity panel of judges – Genie Scott, Carl Zimmer, Phil Plait, and Kate Miller — agonized over their choices before finally casting their life-altering votes.

Third place goes to Entry E submitted by Brooke Lundquist from Niceville, FL.

Second place goes to Entry G submitted by Benjamin Tichy from Calistoga, CA.

And first place goes to Entry C submitted by Richard Korzekwa from Los Alamos, NM.

Congratulations to all! It’s time to select your prizes.

17 Responses to “And the winners are …”

  1. James F Says:

    Entry G was robbed – that was brilliant, truly the only drawback is that you have to know what irreducible complexity is to truly get the joke. ;) Great stuff, though, and one of those entries looked familiar. ;)

  2. PatrickHenry Says:

    I thought Stacy’s entry was a winner. I demand a recount!

  3. Dan! Says:

    Aw nuts! I really wanted to submit one but I just didn’t get around to it. I hope you guys do this again next year. Its a great contest!!

  4. Jesse Says:

    LOL – G was fantastic. Brief. Poignant. Funny.

  5. Luis Dias Says:

    Second place is mistaken. Shouldavebeen first.

    For succinteness. For graphics. For hilarity.

    I really do not understand. It’s the only professional one.

  6. RPJ Says:

    Perhaps I’m missing something, but I don’t see why G should be so high.

    If the cornea of the eye disappeared, it would simply be a fluid-filled sac. Perhaps that could still have some use in some regard, but it isn’t immediately obvious, and anything I might postulate (such as bouyancy) would be unsupported. If anything, this would bolster the claim: in a real-life presentation, one could remove the cornea and ask the audience: “Now, what use could this have with the cornea? Obviously, none. This demonstrates irreducible complexity!”

    A creationist would likely look at this and say “So eyes = nuts with an optical opening? lolscientists”.

  7. ethanol Says:

    RPJ: I believe you are thinking about it a little too hard

  8. Larian LeQuella Says:

    I have a special fondness for Entry E. ;) Although, the judges sent me an email telling me I needed to take her out to dinner for beating my entry!

  9. Stone Age Scientist Says:

    Hi, is the Stick Science Cartoon Contest a yearly event? I can’t seem to find anywhere that says this so, but I’m still asking just to make sure. Thanks.

  10. Jo Says:

    Aw, I thought H was brilliant — how did it not place? (G is hilarious too, although it doesn’t really counter the irreducable complexity canard.)

  11. Stacy Says:

    I agree with Patrick Henry! lol! But seriously, they were all great. :-)

  12. Brandon Haught Says:

    I honestly don’t know if this contest will be annual or not. This is the first time doing it. I think part of that decision will rest on getting another stack of good prizes and some celebrity judges next year. If I can round all that up like I managed to do this year, then I probably will give it another go.

  13. Neil Schipper Says:

    I second Jo: H was the best. Where’d ya find those judges?

  14. David Jacobo Says:

    out of all of them, Entry G got me to literally lough out loud. But then again it’s probably because i have done several papers for school on ID. Yes RPJ is clearly thinking too hard lol.

  15. RPJ Says:

    H was my favorite as well, but it isn’t very clear in stick-figure format…I almost ended up like the creationist, trying to figure out what it’s saying.

    I don’t see how I’m “thinking too hard” The argument of “irreducible complexity” doesn’t say “these structures are one and whole and cannot be broken into parts”. It says “These structures cannot be functional if one of their parts is removed”.

    If the argument was the former, then yes, G would be a good illustration of the fact that the eye can be broken into parts. But since the argument is the latter, it just demonstrates that the eye cannot lose a part and still be useful – which reinforces the argument.

  16. Jonathon Corbridge Says:

    This was a great contest!!!
    While haggling over the winners is kinda fun, the real point was to prove we can very easily beat down the Creation fantasies with simple arguments. All of these entries were great and they all have a proud position on my office billboard.

    Like Dan, my only real complaint is directed at myself for not making the time to submit. We need a book’s worth of these things.

    Seeyah!

  17. Larian LeQuella Says:

    Jonathon,

    BRILLIANT IDEA! I can see that being a good fundraiser for the group. Have this contest as often as you can, and then put all the entries together in a book.

    That line in D still makes me LOL, “gravity advocates pushing people off of buildings.”