It was really refreshing to see such a positively-worded, friendly, factual rebuttal to Comfort's hysteria, ignorance and emotional pandering. The weight of science is behind the theory of evolution (a term too many people fail to understand), and it has a lot more clout than Comfort's introduction would suggest.
The burden of proof lies with Comfort to defend his creationist views, which he did not do; instead, he attempted to tear down evolution using straw men and ludicrous arguments that a child could counter without much effort. He did not defend his own position, and instead chose to attack evolution and atheism (again) without even really understanding what it is he's talking about.
Scott, on the other hand, should be commended for not stooping to Comfort's level and instead providing a gently humorous if serious rebuttal. As I said before, evolution has the weight of science behind it. Creationism, on the other hand, apparently can't even be defended unless that defense includes an uninformed attack on evolution.
Bailey Shoemaker Richardsof OH11:19PM October 30, 2009
The problem that scientists and the educated public has is that they think continuing to pile up evidence for evolution, even from a variety of fields such as biology, anthropology, geology, biochemistry, etc., will somehow convince the unbelievers. It won't work. They are dogmatic in their faith and stupidity. They will never accept the evidence.
Tallgrassof KS9:49PM October 30, 2009
Brent of Ca - Thank you for showing us why some people still listen to Ray Comfort. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
What do you mean, 'Look at the age of the earth'? Do you not understand how multiple different dating methods all agree that our planet is 4.3 billion years old? Do you not understand that there are exactly ZERO current peer-reviewed studies that disagree with that figure? Have you actually done any real study of the age of the earth and the methods that science has used to obtain the dates that it has? I mean actually reading the science, not the twisted mockeries of it to be found on anti-science creationist websites.
Salt water? Salt water?!? See, anyone who actually understood the processes that make up our planet would know that there are processes that take salt(s) OUT of seawater, preventing the level from constantly rising.
This spurious claim, (like so many other ludicrous claims by creationists and young-earthers) has been soundly debunked at the Index of Creationist Claims at the talk.origins archive: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html Perhaps you should go there first, and then come back if you have any claims that haven't already been thoroughly dealt with?
Really Brent, your ignorance on the matter doesn't throw doubt on the age of the earth or the Theory of Evolution, not for me or for anyone else with any understanding of it. I'm no scientist, but even I can see that nothing you've mentioned is any problem for the ToE and the modern sciences of geology, paleontology, plate tectonics, etc.
While any scientist worth their salt (pun intended) will freely admit that there are unanswered questions in biology and evolutionary theory, there is *NO* 'evidence against evolution'. Evolution happens. The theory of HOW it happens has withstood over 150 years of tests from scientists around the world, and every test has made it that much harder to knock over the theory. There is currently no other scientific theory that comes anywhere near answering as many questions about life on earth as the ToE does, nothing that even comes close. Creationism and 'Intelligent Design' are already-falsified hypotheses at best, and neither they nor any other ideas come anywhere close to the explanatory and predictive power of the Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution.
(I mention the Modern Synthesis because it's well known to -real- scientists that Darwin was WRONG in more than one place in his initial theory. In the 150 years since then, science has modified the Theory as new information became available, each new study and experiment refining the ToE and the science around it to ever-greater explanatory power and understanding. That's how science works, it *progresses*, refining or throwing out theories as necessary according to the results of peer-reviewed studies by scientists and students all around the world.)
Religion (and Creationism specifically) have no methods in place to detect and remove errors, just handed-down dogma that claims to be the unchanging Word of God Himself. Look where THAT has taken us over the last 2000 years (or more!), and then look where real Science has taken us in just the last 200. Quite a difference, isn't it? In 2000 years or more, the Creator of the Universe can't manage to tell his most important creations that they could save millions of lives if they just washed their hands after relieving themselves, while Science on the other hand (in 1/10 the time!) has managed to not only figure that out, but has spotted the buggers that cause disease, learned how to kill them, and even begun to read and even unlock the DNA code that makes up all of life on earth. We've put a man on the moon, man! We've peered BILLIONS of light-years into the immensity of space around us. We've harnessed the lightning, harnessed the atom, and have begun to make great strides at harnessing the secrets of life itself. We've peered into the heart of the sun and into the heart of the atoms themselves, sent our eyes to the bottom of the sea, the inside of the cell, and the outer reaches of the Solar System.
Thanks Brent, but I'll stick with Science. Science is not only *really* trying to learn more about the world around us, but the process actively looks for errors, honestly admits it, *and changes them!* when they are found. I'll take that over the alternative you offer any day.
Ermineof CA9:43PM October 30, 2009
I am dismayed to hear that the copy which was sent to Eugenie Scott was abridged. However, the version that can be downloaded from Ray Comfort's website, which includes an introduction heavily revised to (1) be less derivative of his cited sources and (2) dispenses with several instances of poor reasoning, contains the "missing" chapters:
Of course, the proof will be in the primordial pudding served in late November. Will Ray actually distribute a heavily abridged version of "Origin" which doesn't threaten his scientifically void position, or will he do the honorable thing and leave "Origin" intact? (Of course, the more honorable thing would be not to put his pseudo-scientific introduction in the front and, instead, distribute his own booklet.)
Mike Beidlerof CA9:09PM October 30, 2009
Any unbiased observer at his blog will quickly begin to see a pattern: Ray posts some inane screed where he completely misconstrues the Theory of Evolution, the scientific method, history, or even things as simple as just what 'atheism' means. He's immediately taken to task by those able to stomach his tripe long enough to rebut it, and his ludicrously uninformed 'arguments' are taken apart piece by piece.
Ray's response? Every single time it's exactly the same - He responds to NONE of the patient, civil, scientifically-correct debunkings, and shortly thereafter he posts exactly the same garbage as if he'd never had his lies caught and dissected as they are every time he posts them.
Of course, if anyone gets angry and simply calls him an idiot and a liar because he's already been refuted a dozen times for exactly the same claims, he lovingly saves up those posts to hold up later or put in his next book as 'the only arguments the 'Evilutionists' have to offer.'
On the good side, his bad-faith actions are splashed on the page for all to see with every post on his blog. I don't have to save up the history of his dishonesty, anyone can go to his page anytime they like and follow any thread to see the behavior repeated again and again.
With his release of this dishonestly expurgated version of The Origin of the Species, we can plainly see once again how his 'arguments' only hold water if he hides the fact that they were dealt with and soundly put to rest over 150 years ago in Darwin's original publication!
In my eyes at least, the man (And I use the term in its loosest possible meaning) has proven himself again and again to be intentionally dishonest and willfully ignorant, with the proof of it plain to see on the pages of his very own Blog, much less in the annals of science.
Why anyone in their right mind would listen to such an obvious liar as he told them that HE had the answers to eternity is beyond me - Well, it would be, but I know from experience how most Americans have had 'Faith' drilled into their heads from the moment they could speak and understand, taught by parents, teachers, pastors, and everyone around them that believing what they're told without any empirical evidence whatsoever was somehow a more laudable thing than actually seeking out -real- answers and basing their decisions on -real- evidence and peer-reviewed science done by -real- experts in their fields.
Ermineof CA7:20PM October 30, 2009
I think we can take comfort in the realization that no rational, educated person will lend any credence to the writings of Ray.
Horusof NY6:54PM October 30, 2009
When you have someone whose conception of evolution is so wrong as Ray Comfort, it's impossible to show him a transitional fossil. When they notice that according to cladistics that crocodiles are the nearest living relative of birds, they think that the common ancestor of both must have mixed features of both (the "crocoduck") ignoring that the common ancestor lived at least 235 million years ago, and both have had equally as long a time to evolve. Why anyone would think that a duck is the prototypical bird too is a bit bemusing too. Perhaps it is because both ducks and crocodiles are aquatic? To a bible literalist who reads that according to the bible, whales are fish created on the 5th day with birds, before land mammals on the 6th day, perhaps he thinks "habitat equals species"?
Wayne Robinson6:53PM October 30, 2009
SO you are saying that you found a man buried in the ground
Good job, you have proved nothing.
You need to look at some evidence against evolution and prove that wrong.
because you are looking for similarities, not differences, when you find the differences you will see they are tough questions. Evolution is based on time, so look at time itself. Look at the age of the earth,
and then look at the increase of salt in salt water in the oceans explain how if this earth was even more than 1 million years old there would be no way for a sea creature to live in the ocean.
If you want real science to emerge don't limit it
Brentof CA6:49PM October 30, 2009
I didn' think anyone took this guy seriously!
He is a trainwreck. No education whatsoever and never once does he ever present any evidence for his claims. He seems to be an emotional creature who does not have the wherewithal to actually face the facts. He is a master of obfuscation who comes up with these quaint sayings of the atheists-believe-this-and-they-believe-that-but-they-don't-know-it-but-that's-what they-believe genre.
Since most of my friends and family are Christians, I know Christians and Ray Comfort is no Christian. He is totally divorced from reality.
Scoobyof PA6:49PM October 30, 2009
When you deal with somebody like Ray Comfort you have to remember: This is somebody who regards that whole "banana man" video clip fiasco as a victory because it made him an internet celebrity and greatly expanded his platform, even tho he's tacitly admitted he ended up looking like a boob.
Reader Comments
Back to blog
Bailey Shoemaker Richards of OH 11:19PM October 30, 2009
Tallgrass of KS 9:49PM October 30, 2009
Ermine of CA 9:43PM October 30, 2009
Mike Beidler of CA 9:09PM October 30, 2009
Ermine of CA 7:20PM October 30, 2009
Horus of NY 6:54PM October 30, 2009
Wayne Robinson 6:53PM October 30, 2009
Brent of CA 6:49PM October 30, 2009
Scooby of PA 6:49PM October 30, 2009
captain howdy of TX 6:33PM October 30, 2009