Your Thoughts on Creationism/Darwinism Debate
By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
The God & Country debate between creationist Ray Comfort and scientist Genie Scott over Comfort's new pro-creationist edition of Darwin's On the Origin of Species has generated more than 700 comments since it began on Thursday. That's more feedback than any other issue on this blog has received over any similar stretch in its not-quite-one-year of existence.
Comments from evolutionists far outweigh those from creationists. But here's a handful of the most colorful and revealing comments so far from both sides:
From evolutionist Richard Eis:
It is no longer funny to laugh at people like Ray Comfort. It is merely highly embarrassing that I should share genetics with someone who, having been told repeatedly where to find his supposed non-existing fossils and also that males didn't "come first," is still spouting the exact same rubbish he always has.
It is not ignorance, or even willful ignorance any more. He is a pernicious liar. A mental 5 year old who refuses to admit that he is wrong. Frankly he should apologize to Genie Scott for wasting her time and ours on drivel long since patiently explained to him on more than one occasion.
He is also doing no favor to Christians who, because of guilt by association, are repeatedly left looking like drooling sycophantic fools. This is not a person you want to have representing you in a public debate.
From creationist Joe Dalfonso:
An increasing number of scientists are believing that thousands of species appeared on the world scene at once, based on SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, and yet creationism cannot be taught as an alternative view to the THEORY of evolution in most public schools. Where is the free speech? This is inconsistent.
In due time, the theory of evolution will be laughed at by the world. It is simply not logical.
A Darwinian case for compassion from Christopher Myburgh:
We should work hard to save the planet because we LIVE on it. If the planet as we know it were to die, very little would survive, including us. And all species should be preserved, the weak and the strong, because to lose something that took millions of years to develop would be a complete and utter shame.
Evolution does nothing to destroy compassion for mankind and other products of nature. In fact, I found a whole new respect for life, nature and the sciences when I adopted a wholly naturalistic world-view. Now religions of intolerance such as Islam and Christianity which promote abuse and racism, these are things that destroy compassion.
Atheism does not equate to nihilism. That seems to me the biggest mistake made by religious folk.
Torrie of Oregon wants Comfort's book banned:
Please Ban Ray Comfort's defacing of Darwin's Origin of Species. Comfort doesn't know a thing about Science. This guy thinks a banana has a creator when a banana doesn't even replicate it's own genes! He's arguing apples and oranges! There is no place in Science, or in any decent Publication, for Ray Comfort or his brainwashed side-kick, Kirk Cameron. They are both "growing pains."
Ric of Delaware takes me and U.S. News to task for hosting this debate:
U.S. News & World Report should be ashamed for publishing such ignorant drivel. Ray Comfort doesn't have a clue about the science. If he did, he'd know that the straw men he throws up were demolished a century ago.
And Tracy of Utah, like many creationist commenters, invokes her faith:
. . . no God to answer to, no laws to obey. (That's why they like evolution so much.)
So, one more time: where are the transitional fossils? You reply, "oh, they're there," and then go on with your sophomoric sneering. There are no transitional fossils!
Tags: religion | evolution | Charles Darwin
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (85) | Print
Reader Comments
Physics Abuse
"first Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant." If it is constant, then you cannot use up / decrease the amount of energy in the universe. Duh.
I don't understand why you are arguing against yourself Daniel. The First Law of Thermodynamics states the conservation of energy. You mentioned and agreed with this. Then, by your own reasoning energy cannot be consumed/destroyed, so why do you shift to saying the universe is using up energy in the next sentence? The universe is not using up energy like a car uses up fuel, because energy cannot be destroyed. Energy is merely rearranged. They way you interpreted the 2nd Law, to mean that it decreases the amount of energy in the system, violates the First Law. Are you being purposefully deceitful, or are you just this clueless?
I do like Norman Geisler
Daniel, the book you quoted from was not written by scientists but apologists Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. Scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. They call it the Big Bang.
It is worth noting that your reference to the "2nd Law of Thermodynamics" is often erroneously applied to evolution by creationists, claiming it cannot then occur because of this. This is of course false, since it only applies to closed systems, and our Earth (which gets plenty of energy from the sun) is not a closed system.
It is also worth noting that Norman Geisler was involved in the court case of McLean v. Arkansas, defending creationism vs evolution. In that court, under oath of course, he admitted to UFO's connection with Satan.
The Universe had a Beginning.
Thermodynamics is the study of energy, and the Second Law states, among other things, that the universe is running out of usable energy.
You say, “So what? How does that prove that the universe had a beginning?” Well look at it this way: the first Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. In other words, the universe has only a finite amount of energy (much as your car has only a finite amount of gas). Now, if your car has only a finite amount of gas (the Second Law), and whenever it’s running it continually consumes gas (the Second Lasw), would your car be running right now if you had started it up an infinitely long time ago? No, of course not. It would be out of gas by now. In the same way, the universe would be out of energy by now if it had been running from all eternity. But here we are—the lights are still on, so the universe must have begun sometime in the finite past. That is, the universe is NOT eternal—it had a beginning.
Source: “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” pg.76
advertisement
