Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Next up: Ray Comfort challenges Mary Shelly to a debate on biology.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 10, 2006 9:57 AM

I have no degree in anything but a BS in Dilletantism and I've been kicking creationist butt for many years now. It doesn't take an oncologist to lance a boil and it doesn't take a PhD in evolutionary biology to lance a creationist.

I would love to see Bill Maher slice and dice a creationist!

Posted by: Susan Brassfield Cogan | May 10, 2006 10:41 AM

As I noted to Ed in the email, if he wants to debate a media figure, I think Penn Gillette would be perfect.

Posted by: Jon Rowe | May 10, 2006 10:59 AM

Count your blessings, bsa - I'm on my laptop.

That actually is an interesting exercise, though, and I think it's worth trying (not as part of a debate!). I mean giving "the case for evolution" in 20 minutes. Naturally, approached in one way it would be like the "summarize Proust" competition from Monty Python; but in another it would be a quick primer on the formal and conceptual integration of the various scientific disciplines, and its significance for scientific inferences. Still, you'd have to talk fast. What would you say, Ed?

BTW while I was over at WND, I saw that James Kennedy will be "debunking the Da Vinci Code." Next thing you know they'll tell us Sherlock Holmes never existed. Sheesh.

Posted by: Dave M. | May 10, 2006 12:03 PM

daveinci says:

Fair enough, Mr. Comfort. Next time, why not talk to -- oh, say -- Richard Dawkins? Or E.O. Wilson? Actually, come to think of it, it would be fantastic if Maher accepted the challenge and then brought Dawkins/Wilson out to speak instead.

Nah, as the mere fact of doing that would simply validate the wingnut in the eyes of the target audience. Why would "they" need to bring in Dawkins unless "they" were afraid of what Mr. Comfort has to say? What was actually said then would be totally irrelevant. In fact, such is usually the case anyway in such debates.

Posted by: Dave S. | May 10, 2006 12:39 PM

Says Ray Comfort: "Mr. Maher, like all believers in the theory of evolution, simply has a blind faith in a theory-tale that can't be substantiated. It's just another opiate of the masses - a religion called 'Darwinism' that piously robes itself in what it thinks is 'science.' It is true science fiction."

Another opiate of the masses? What are you saying?

Posted by: beervolcano | May 10, 2006 6:37 PM

Dave M./Caledonian:

I was making my comment in the context of Comfort's claim that he could scientifically prove ID (as opposed to disproving something) in 20 minutes (without further qualification, tentativeness, etc). While I am aware that any, currently accepted, scientific theory has been proven to be the best currently available explanation, given current evidence, I see no evidence at all that Comfort meant his claims to be taken in this manner (for one thing the extra qualifications make it highly unlikely that it could all be shoehorned into 20 minutes).

I think that a difference in viewpoints may be causing confusion here. Speaking as a Taoist and a Discordian, I distrust claims to absolute truth, and therefore trust science's claims more BECAUSE they are tentative. Therefore I see no reason to de-emphasise that tentativeness. Theists and/or atheists may see things differently.

Posted by: Tim Makinson | May 10, 2006 10:49 PM

...the boneheaded apologist who thinks ID is true because bananas fit perfectly in the hands of primates...

Update: Ray Comfort conceded the banana argument to an atheist. The banana is no longer the atheists' nightmare. So no more banana jokes please. Mr. Comfort also theorized that the banana peel may serve no useful function. E.g., at least you can put orange peels in cakes and stuff. (I'll note that Woody Allen once made a movie called Bananas and when asked why he gave it that title he said it was because there are no bananas in it, QED.)

Posted by: 386sx | May 11, 2006 1:53 AM

Caledonian says:

Your comment was incorrect, ignorant, and downright stupid regardless of the context it is placed in. You can't run and hide behind the idea that you were somehow misunderstood. You *were* understood, and that's why we know you're a fool.

I think this comment was uncalled for. Whether or not you agree with him, Tim Makinson's point was not so unreasonable and he personally was not deserving of such a harangue.

Posted by: Dave S. | May 11, 2006 9:46 AM

Jon Rowe: Jillette actually talked about the banana thing a couple of weeks ago on his radio show. I agree, it would be hysterically entertaining to see the two debate. Though personally the way Jillette yells; i would never debate him.

Posted by: Matthew | May 11, 2006 7:54 PM

Caledonian:

Disproving a statement IS proving its negation, and vice versa. There's no difference between the two, only in the perspective involved; your distinction is invalid.

More generally, scientists tend to frame their hypotheses fairly tightly and specifically, making their negations fairly broad and vague, and thus the 'proof' of these negations generally fairly scientifically uninteresting.

Posted by: Tim Makinson | May 11, 2006 11:54 PM

Caledonian, let me explain this in simple terms so that even a brain-damaged troll such as yourself can follow it.

1) Comfort claimed that he could scientifically prove ID in 20 minutes.

2) I pointed out that science doesn't prove, it only disproves.

3) You repeatedly harp on that disproof of something is proof of its negation.

4) I point out that this is only relevant if Evolution and ID are a dichotomy such that Evolution is ID's negation (and vice versa), so that you could prove ID by disproving Evolution. If such a dichotomy doesn't hold (and I claim that it doesn't) then how the hell can you "scientifically prove" ID by disproving its negation? And if you can't, then what the hell is the relevancy of "disproof is proof of the negation" to discussion of Comfort's claims?

You aren't "correcting" me, you are ranting about a hair-splitting irrelevancy.

I may, in your psychotic opinion, be bringing the "stupid" to the table, but it is you who is bringing the rabid, foaming at the mouth, ad hominem-spitting anger. It brings far more heat than light, and makes you a boring sparring partner. You are less pleasant to debate than the most bigoted, self-righteous, egocentric fundamentalist Creationist.

Posted by: Tim Makinson | May 12, 2006 12:44 PM

And again, you're wrong, and on multiple levels.

...all it does is show that various hypotheses are compatible or incompatible with the available data.

Your statement is simply wrong. If you don't accept that the correctness of arguments is relevant to the discussion, you have problems.

INCORRECT! I have acceded the point that disproving something is equivalent to proving its negation as a matter of hair-splitting logic, I have just claimed that it is IRRELEVANT to the question of whether you can "scientifically prove ID":

4) I point out that this is only relevant if Evolution and ID are a dichotomy such that Evolution is ID's negation (and vice versa), so that you could prove ID by disproving Evolution. If such a dichotomy doesn't hold (and I claim that it doesn't) then how the hell can you "scientifically prove" ID by disproving its negation? And if you can't, then what the hell is the relevancy of "disproof is proof of the negation" to discussion of Comfort's claims?

So Caledonian, try saying something that is (1) relevant to the matter under discussion (Comfort's claims) and (2) isn't another steaming pile of personal abuse!

Posted by: Tim Makinson | May 13, 2006 2:12 AM

has anyone ever listened to ray comfort's ministry hell's best kept secret? it contradicts his christ-based philosophy regarding lying, adultery, theft, hatred, etc. he claims once you're saved you're always saved. first, he insists that if you ever stole anything, regardless what it is or when you did it you're a thief. if you ever lied you're a liar. if you looked at a woman lustfully you already committed adultery with her in your heart. if you hate you're a murderer. these are in scripture by the way. but he's taking the whole thing out of context i'm sure. it's like saying if you have a big steak dinner and a baked potato you're a vegetarian. if you ever look at a joint and even think about taking a toke you're a drug addict in your heart. yet, he doesn't call himself a liar when he claims he can convince a person there's a god in two minutes though he never does. i have listened to this guy preach and i'm not impressed. he looks more like a publicity hound than a preacher.

Posted by: daniel | July 21, 2006 8:34 PM