Home > News > God & Country > Exclusive: Ray Comfort Defends His Creationist Edition of 'On the Origin of Species'

Exclusive: Ray Comfort Defends His Creationist Edition of 'On the Origin of Species'

Reader Comments
Back to blog

He makes common sense. Darwin caught the imagination of a generation that wanted a way for everything to come from "nearly nothing" (Ancestor's Tale, p. 613)--without God. It is an un-"sexed up" (God Delusion, p. 40) meta-story about the origin of life on earth for modernity, which appeals to those who don't even understand it. (That is the point of his interviews with college students.)
My only wish is that Comfort included more scientific data in his presentations, but, of course, they are intended to be accessible and not scholarly.

Morgan Marvinson of NC 8:23PM May 15, 2010

A closed mind does not lend itself to the process of science. That said, its amazing to me how quickly atheist are so quick to fall away from rational thinking in at least considering another view point and move quickly to irrational behavior such as defamation and destroying books. Perhaps this is just explained as a chemical reaction in which case, rational thinking can not be trusted because it is in and of itself the result of a series of accidents. (oh yea...insert choas theory here and thise will explain it).

leadpile com of AZ 7:33AM May 06, 2010

Great post as for me. I'd like to read a bit more about this matter. Thanx for posting that info.

PhillDoc of AL 9:08PM March 09, 2010

A closed mind does not lend itself to the process of science. That said, its amazing to me how quickly atheist are so quick to fall away from rational thinking in at least considering another view point and move quickly to irrational behavior such as defamation and destroying books. Perhaps this is just explained as a chemical reaction in which case, rational thinking can not be trusted because it is in and of itself the result of a series of accidents. (oh yea...insert choas theory here and thise will explain it).
Point and conclusion. No matter how you explain the process, you are still left with how the process got started, no matter how simple or complex it is. At this point your faced with faith. Or maybe it actually starts with faith. The thing that atheist and theist have in common is we wake up every day to the constant of underversal law. The difference between us: We can account for it.

gb of TX 5:26PM February 16, 2010

I would like to deal with the comment that: "There are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record".
A general definition of a species: a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
However this does not lead to distinct classifications of species as we label them. While in the majority the species that are labelled would not have been able to interbreed with each other, there are those at the ends of those classified of each species that could. While any species and the species that it evolved from are indeed classified as separate species there was no creature, thanks to modern systems of classifications, that is inbetween. However if you took one from the 1st species just before it was to have changed in to the new species and one of the new species just after it had changed, they would be able to interbreed making them the same species. However if species' classifications were to take account of this then there would be no way of keeping species separate as at the split between two species they could interbreed and create viable offspring. This is why there's no fossil labelled as inbetween species x and species y. While it may be able to breed with them both (thereby according to the definition given above belonging to both species) the current system of labelling only allows it to be callled one species or another.
Anecdotal evidence for this can be seen in the fact that some fossils' species name is changed, sometimes more than once, due to it being found so close to the divide between different species that it could be in either.
This should should hopefully lead to the realisation that every fossil

Name 4:49PM February 14, 2010

Please tell me you didn't write this with a straight face. Just so you know, anyone with any understanding of evolution will mock this for the farce that it is.

Rob Woods of KY 1:46PM February 01, 2010

The Bible says that people will gradually turn away from God and persecute those who still are in the Lord's will. The comments on this page just reinforce the truth of the Bible. Science is great, when it is supported with evidence. Evolution (macro, not micro) isn't supported with evidence. We are heading towards a secular only world. When that time arrives, I'll be glad to die for God. One of you may be the one who kills me. I pray that you will unharden your hearts to God before it's too late. If I'm wrong, I'll just rot in the ground. If you're wrong, uh-oh. God bless

Jay of AL 12:35PM January 27, 2010

I can't help but feeling that characters like Johnson, Behe and Comfort know better, but the money is just too good to pass on. They fall in the same category as the televangelists, mullahs and others who derive power and economic benefit from feeding credulous people with bogus religious rules, taboos and pseudo-science.
What amazes me is that the same people that refute carefully conducted, peer reviewed science when it conflicts with their bronze age or late antiquity holy books, have no qualms using the fruits of that very same science when its suits them. I have no doubt that Mr. Comfort uses computers, cell phones and the internet, and happily jets to his speaking engagements. I would have more respect for him if he lived like a Mennonite or better yet, as a bronze age goat herd in the desert, following his holy book to the letter.
And what about these holy books anyway. The bible encourages genocide (Jericho), incest (Lot), pimping (Abraham, Lot, an others),and requires the death penalty for every infraction of the ten commandments. The koran incites the killing of infidels on page after page.
It would be funny, but the scary fact is that for the time being common sense and intellect are on the defensive in many parts of the world. Sadly, the US is in this respect no better than the least educated countries of the Middle East or North Africa.

Thomas E. Gieskes of TX 7:26PM January 23, 2010

I like posting comments as much as the next guy, but all of you must realize the futility of these discussions. I will concede that at this point in time, science can not provide all the answers that would once and for all stop all the ignorant arrogant claims (banana insert here), but it is merely a matter of time. All you have to do to realize this “fact” is to take a concise look at our recent history. Not that long ago the church (religion as a whole) possessed ultimate power and it dictated every aspect life, that power has been slowly eroded away by the reasoning of great minds, (Darwin features prominently here) and the relentless progress of science. So, being human, it is in our nature to want instant gratification and see this issue resolved within our lifetimes, alas that may not happen; but rest assured that it will in a not so distant future. Nut jobs like Comfort and other religious leaders see this trend more clearly than most, and it hurts their bottom line, (pockets) thus they are desperate to slow down this inexorable march towards a complete secular world. This can be viewed as “Religious Death Throes” nothing more. We do, however, need to remain vigilant and not loose any ground that we have gained; and fight ignorance every chance we get to expedite the process as much as possible.

Science rules of KY 11:18AM January 06, 2010

Ray Comfort wants every university student to read 'Origins', but the copy Eugenie Scott rec'd from Comforts publisher was missing 4 chapters plus Darwins introduction. Maybe it was (cough) just an oversight ?
As for the rest of Comforts remarks, they're so bad, so frequently wrong and misleading, it's hard to know where to start. Perhaps I'll end with my amazement at finding out, per Comforts definition, that I'm not an atheist.

Jeff William of TX 11:35AM December 27, 2009