Your Thoughts on Creationism/Darwinism Debate

Readers weigh in on a debate about a creationist edition of Darwin's On the Origin of Species.


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!