Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Those of us who've been active in defending science education from the attacks of creationists, as I have for most of my adult life, often find great amusement in the fact that the anti-evolution movement evolves quite rapidly in response to changes in the legal environment. The latest strategy, apparently conceived by the brilliant minds of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, is relatively clever in concept and mind-numbingly idiotic in execution.
What did these two geniuses come up with? How about publishing an abridged edition of On the Origin of Species -- it is in the public domain now, after all -- and slap on an introduction full of blatantly creationist nonsense. Here's their sales pitch:
This special 280-page edition not only contains an abridged Origin of Species but also has a 50-page Introduction that reveals the dangerous fruit of evolution, Hitler's undeniable connections to the theory, Darwin's racism, and his distain (sic) for women. It counters the claim that creationists are "anti-science" by citing numerous scientists who believed that God created the universe--scientists such as Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Bacon, Faraday, Pasteur, and Kepler. It has many original graphics and (as it says on the back cover) is designed for use in schools, colleges, and prestigious learning institutions. The back cover lists the above information as well as saying the book contains "Information on Intelligent Design vs Evolution." We want to get one million copies into the hands of students and professors in colleges and universities throughout the U.S. Let's see if they try to ban Darwin's Origin of Species. That would be interesting.
You can read that 50 page introduction here (PDF). It's predictably idiotic and appallingly dishonest. Like this statement:
Do you think that DNA's amazing structure could have come together by accident? Or does it point to an intelligent Designer? Even the director of the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute concluded there is a God based on his study of DNA. Francis Collins, the scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome, believes there is a rational basis for a Creator and that scientific discoveries bring man "closer to God":When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1-billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can't survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can't help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
Let's count the ways this is a dishonest statement (as I imagine Collins himself would agree). First, it repeats the tired old creationist canard about life evolving "by accident." Chance is but one aspect of evolution, of course, and natural selection is entirely non-random.
Second, Collins did not conclude that there is a God "based on his study of DNA." He was a believer long before the human genome project began. Third, much of the book being quoted is spent discussing why the human genome project provided overwhelming evidence for evolution. That is what leads Collins to declare, "Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."
The rest of the introduction is spent rehashing every bad argument in the creationist jokebook. It also quotes the Bible, talks about the Ten Commandments, compares the various religions and why Christianity is the best one. Seriously, what school course do they think this book is going to be used for? It's all quite laughable. Why, it's probably the dumbest idea Ray Comfort has had all day (though I have no doubt he will top it tomorrow).
Politics
Comments
The saddest part is that someone or some organization will probably pay good money to have their drivel published and distributed. What a waste.
Posted by: MikeMa | June 24, 2009 10:32 AM
Nah - just send them to the oldies who love a good book-burning*. Win-Win! - ;) DJ
*along with a couple of choruses of Horst Wessel Lied around the bonfire
Posted by: DingoJack | June 24, 2009 10:54 AM
It counters the claim that creationists are "anti-science" by citing numerous scientists who believed that God created the universe--scientists such as Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Bacon, Faraday, Pasteur, and Kepler.
Of course all but two of these died before Darwin wrote Origin of Species. And there is no way in hell that Einstein was a Creationist in the modern sense of the word. More intentional dishonesty from RayRay.
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | June 24, 2009 10:56 AM
As to getting one million copies into the hands of students and profs, I just don't think there are that many students and profs at bible colleges. Even most of the profs at the religious liberal arts colleges aren't that type of creationist.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 24, 2009 10:59 AM
I thought Collins believes in god because he once saw a stream frozen in three while hiking through the woods. Which is odd because not seeing any frozen streams in the woods is exactly the reason why I'm an atheist.
Posted by: AL Jeremy | June 24, 2009 11:06 AM
AL Jeremy, #5
It is interesting how that works. Some people say the more science they learn, the more it reinforces their atheism. Others, like myself, say the more science we learn the more it strengthens our faith. I agree with you that it is odd how the same cause results in such different effects.
Posted by: heddle | June 24, 2009 11:16 AM
"It counters the claim that creationists are "anti-science" by citing numerous scientists who believed that God created the universe--scientists such as Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Bacon, Faraday, Pasteur, and Kepler."
Uh Ray, I've got a question for you. What have those 'notable biologists' Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Bacon, Faraday, and Kepler* got to do with a theory that explains how biological organisms (as species) can change over time to maximise their chances of surviving to have the offspring most likely to survive and breed themselves (and so on)? -DJ
*in case you don't get it, Ray-Ray, none are actually BIOLOGISTS. They have no expertise AT ALL in the field of BIOLOGY. Their beliefs are TOTALLY IRRELAVANT TO THE ISSUE OF EVOLUTION, AND THEIR EXPERTISE AS SCIENTISTS IS IRRELAVANT AS WELL!
Posted by: DingoJack | June 24, 2009 11:21 AM
One minor quibble: I'd say that, "natural selection is almost entirely non-random". Sometimes, no matter how fit you are for a particular environment, a tree just falls on your ass.
Posted by: Ranson | June 24, 2009 11:22 AM
Heddle, I suspect AL Jeremy was being sarcastic - I found it funny, anyway...
But actually, to take up your point - I find that the difference often comes down to whether you're learning science as 'more and more cool facts to know and share' or science as an approach to the world.
Learning the scientific approach/outlook/however you want to put it is, to my mind, less likely to strengthen faith. Simply learning more cool stuff about the world, though - that could go either way.
Posted by: Lee Harrison | June 24, 2009 11:25 AM
They've been ammending and extending the bible for millenia, why would they not do it to darwin?
Posted by: rpsms | June 24, 2009 11:30 AM
Posted by: Taz | June 24, 2009 11:32 AM
Heddle - Come back - we miss you! Well, actually, Rich misses you. He even made a special car post for you! :)
Posted by: J-Dog | June 24, 2009 11:38 AM
Hey, DJ, your post should read *irrelevant.* :p
Posted by: Bob Carroll | June 24, 2009 12:07 PM
I can see this book being used at a "prestigious learning institution"--in a course entitled "Anti-Intellectualism in Modern America."
How long before they make it into a movie--starring Ben Stein as Charles Darwin?
Posted by: mark | June 24, 2009 12:31 PM
heddle
By chance do you confuse wonder and faith?
I am in awe of how much there is to learn, how much others know of subjects that interest me. Faith really doesn't enter into it unless its faith that there will always be more to learn.
What science have you recently learned that has boosted your faith?
Posted by: MikeMa | June 24, 2009 12:33 PM
heddle stated:
I would be interested in considering an expansion on your point. It seems a contradiction in terms. I'm assuming your use of the word "faith" is a committed belief in a worldview that extends beyond reason and evidence.
If so, science provides the opposite, reducing our need to rely on beliefs beyond reason and evidence. The more scientific findings one learns, the less it seems one would need to rely on faith and/or speculation to buttress their worldview.
In addition, at least from my perspective, the more science informs us of the the universe we live in, the less opportunities there are to make an argument only invoking a god can explain our observations.
Therefore, combining the two appears that the result of the growth of scientific understanding by definition reduces the need for faith, and so far in the human experience, reduces the opportunities to even make cogent arguments that relies on a god who either chooses or is incapable of revealing himself in a manner empirically cognizant to humanity in a quantifiable manner.
How can one rationally conclude the opposite as you've done?
I find this especially intriguing because it's well known and accepted that one of the most popular objections to accepting the theory of evolution by Christians who reject the theory is their fear that it requires them to reject their idea of an intervening, loving god. I realize people like yourself, Ken Miller, and Francis Collins have come to reconcile that conundrum, but it's still a dominant perspective of conservative Christianity.
Posted by: Mike Heath | June 24, 2009 12:34 PM
"Original graphics" is a big step up, though. The Disco Institute just pirates them without credit.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | June 24, 2009 12:38 PM
How can one rationally conclude the opposite as you've done?
Probably something having to do with ignorance and gaps. The more science we learn, the more we know we don't know. Something like that probably. It has to be some kind of gap of ignorance thing or something like that. God, the hide and seek ignorant gap-seeker.
Posted by: 386sx | June 24, 2009 1:01 PM
I, like Mike @16, am interested in hearing how you came to that conclusion. And please realize that I'm not asking this in order to bash you or your beliefs. I'm just don't understand how somebody can come to the conclustion that science strengthens faith when every single discovery that science makes is some version of the answer "Not God".
If science ever found something that actually pointed towards a supernatural solution, then that would certainly strengthen faith. You'd see scientist chenging their minds right and left. It would be a profound new discovery since it would open up an entirely new realm to study. Or understanding of the world would drasticly change.
But currently, there's not one piece of evidence nor one single discovery nor a single answer to any scientific question that's had the answer "Yep, God did that".
Posted by: GregB | June 24, 2009 1:06 PM
Why the abridgement? So they can leave out all the best bits?
Posted by: Neuroskeptic | June 24, 2009 1:12 PM
This is a logical extension of DaveScot's policy of altering other people's comments on UD, and adding his own replies to those comments. Now they're doing it with whole books. See how surprised I'm not?
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 24, 2009 1:18 PM
Ranson, a tree falling on your ass isn't natural selection. Natural selection is entirely non-random, as Ed states--it's just not the only mechanism of evolution. Trees-falling-on-asses is a mechanism of evolution, just like natural selection is--but they're not the same thing. Natural selection is (according to most, anyway) the MAIN mechanism of evolution, but chance DOES play a role in population change.
But just because a tree can eliminate a particular critter before it reproduces doesn't mean evolution as a whole is completely random, nor does it mean that natural selection isn't entirely non-random :)
Posted by: Dr. Kate | June 24, 2009 1:20 PM
... Hitler's undeniable connections to the theory, Darwin's racism, ...
Because the founder of Protestantism was perfect in that regard and had absolutely no influence on the Nazis.
Posted by: DP | June 24, 2009 1:37 PM
Einstein was a straight Spinoza pantheist, and absolutely and utterly rejected a personal God. In practice, pantheism of this sort is pretty much indistinguishable from atheism, since Spinoza's god never acted in the world, lacked free will, and was (arguably) unintelligent.
Also, I could see maybe using the introduction as a teaching tool in a freshmen bio class. Showing people why evolution is the best theory by poking holes in the idiotic alternative is a perfectly valid instructional choice (I believe P.Z. Myers actually does something like this.)
Posted by: Awesome McCool | June 24, 2009 1:41 PM
The original had 500+ pages. What did they delete?
That would be a worthwhile project, issuing an edition of Darwin with their edits highlighted.
Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | June 24, 2009 2:06 PM
J-Dog,
I'll trundle over soon. With Pittsburgh sports teams winning world championships seemingly, like, every other day-- I've been on a drunken binge of celebration. I'm starting to sober up.
Mike-Ma
That's a fair question. Maybe.
All of the high precision cosmology of the last 20 years.
Mike Heath,
It reduces our need to rely on beliefs beyond reason and evidence to explain the natural world. It is the amazing success of methodological naturalism that inspires my faith.
True, so its a good thing that my faith is not based on finding things that can only be explained by invoking God.
GregB,
You are missing my point, which is the same as Collins' and opposite of the IDers. It's not what we don't know that is amazing--it's what we do know.
Posted by: heddle | June 24, 2009 2:18 PM
Dr. Kate,
I concede the point. I've just been so used to making the correction about the sweeping generalization that all evolution is non-random that I overzealously applied it here.
It's all good, I say.
Posted by: Ranson | June 24, 2009 2:22 PM
Heddle - thanks for responding. I'm still kind of lost on your logic however, especially given this response,
which again seems contradictory, but maybe not so given your
fine-tuned universe argues for a god assertion to Mike Ma:
Have you considered the best arguments that attempt to discredit the god-created fine-tuned universe? Such as: multi-verses, absurdity of changing one variable in a complex system, opportunities for life with different multiple variable values, lack of human observations of life on other planets given the size of the universe (a project which is just now starting as we begin to aggregate discoveries of planets).
The reason I ask is that all of these speculations provide an arguable hypothesis that does not require invoking a complex intelligence, which requires one to create an arguably absurd assertion (complex intelligence created/existing outside the known universe with no supporting evidence). Given we've been able to explain all scientific findings without invoking God, why do you begin with God on your fine-tuned universe understanding merely because we have near-infinite work to do in understanding our planet relative to other planets and better understand our universe prior to its existence.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 24, 2009 3:24 PM
Michael Heath,
A laudably honest way to phrase it.
1) Multiverses -- yes I have considered them at great length. They have an interesting side-effect that almost everyone misses, especially the IDers. A generic prediction of the multiverse is that our universe should look like an incredibly low-probability, lucky random draw. Strangely enough, IDers typically argue (by incorrect methods, but that's beside the point) that our universe is low probability (exactly what the multiverse predicts)--and anti-IDers tell them they are nuts. I never "got" this. As I have said many times, the best case scenario for ID is the high probability universe--exactly the opposite of what the multiverse predicts.
2) absurdity of changing one variable in a complex system. I don't know what you mean.
3) lack of human observations of life on other planets given the size of the universe. Of course, cosmological fine tuning arguments say nothing about the probability of life on other planets. They are more or less agnostic in that regard. They argue that our universe is on a razor's edge for any kind of life. Do not mix them up with "privileged planet" type arguments--they are very different.
But I am not sure what all this has to do with my assertion--which had nothing to do whatsoever with fine-tuning. Advances in science do not strengthen my faith because of fine tuning, but because the universe is more beautiful and more awesome than ever imagined, and also that we can comprehend so much of the universe--that is the mathematics we are able to grasp is sufficient for explaining so much. In short it is the aesthetics that are compelling, for me. The very same aesthetics that might reinforce another's atheism.
If the universe had been LaPlacian--well that would have been, by contrast, quite inelegant and ugly.
Posted by: heddle | June 24, 2009 3:46 PM
I think we're using "random" in different senses. Very few traits (besides the guaranteed-lethal sort) do more than tip the odds slightly -- it's the cumulative result of all those little tips that make the net difference. So, like quantum mechanics, at the up-close level the processes are random and when you get enough of them they average out.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 24, 2009 4:09 PM
Does anyone know if Comfort actually drives a livable wage or even a comfortable living spewing this propaganda to brain-damaged social conservatives?
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 24, 2009 4:52 PM
Michael: I don't know for sure, but my hunch, sadly, is that the answer to your question is "yes." He's probably moderately to largely successful peddling snake oil to the educationally-impaired, or perhaps he's the scion of a wealthy family and does this purely as a hobby.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 24, 2009 5:13 PM
Re Heddle
2) absurdity of changing one variable in a complex system. I don't know what you mean.
I don't want to put words in Mr. Heaths' mouth as he is more then capable of expressing himself quite well but what I think he means here is that the exercise of varying each of the variables cited in fine tuning in isolation makes no sense. Thus, it could well be, as Victor Stenger argues, that a change in one of them might be compensated for by a change on another of them.
In addition, there may be other factors at work. For instance, one of the constants originally considered part of the fine tuning argument was the gravitational constant. However, we now know that dark energy dominates the expansion of the universe, not the gravitational constant.
Posted by: SLC | June 24, 2009 5:40 PM
SLC - you nailed the category I was attempting to describe. I too have read Stenger's argument discrediting that argument, in my opinion convincingly (though I think Stenger extends his argument too far on some of his other arguments).
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 24, 2009 6:00 PM
Comfort's version of Origin is not yet up on Amazon. I would hope to see reader reviews that are quickly posted when it is that point out Comfort's past record on intellectual dishonesty coupled to his ginormous idiocy and ignorance. All being valid reasons to avoid purchasing this version of Darwin's masterpiece.
It's kind like producing an abridged version of the Bible with a foreword by Satan.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 24, 2009 6:05 PM
SLC & MH,
Personally I find Stenger's argument to be woefully underdeveloped. That is, what he argues, popular science style, is that the fine tuning is an illusion. It's a sensible hypothesis, but he has done little to run with it. That said--blog commenters often give him credit for solving the fine-tuning problem--which he most decidedly has not.
Circumstantial evidence comes from the professional scientific literature--where I have yet to see anyone write: Fine tuning? There is no fine tuning problem, c.f. Victor Stenger.
Posted by: heddle | June 24, 2009 6:12 PM
Sure I would use this book in college. The same way I use all Zondervan tripe. As a foil for really awesome perspectives on American Lunacy and how it tries to insinuate itself into our political process via nutty cults funded by the Coors Foundation or James Dobson or some other lunatic Abductee that escaped Jesus' mothership.
All books, even bad ones are potentially useful.
Posted by: seeing eye chick | June 24, 2009 7:01 PM
So much for free speech. I always knew the radicals would take over the nation. They have the white house, senate, congress, and now the education department. Oh, well they still loose. We conservatives still run the military and without it, all else is junk anyway.
Posted by: Green beret wannabe | June 24, 2009 8:20 PM
So much for free speech. I always knew the radicals would take over the nation. They have the white house, senate, congress, and now the education department.
Creationism is liberal?
Posted by: NC | June 24, 2009 10:43 PM
heddle,
I have no issue in someone positing a god which is unaffected (or even celebrated) by its absence from findings in science - except that it seems that the resemblance of such a god to the Judeo-Christian one is minimal at best.
To which the standard response is, 'well, that's just a matter of interpretation', but the reality is that my interpretation is irrelevant, because what I'm saying is that it's what the vast majority of Christians have believed in for almost the entire history of the religion - and, indeed what no small number of Christians still believe in today. Specifically, a god who is not the invisible god outside of science but a tangible, interactive god who performs miracles and who can (and does) affect the material world.
Not to mention the fact that the movement toward the 'outside-of-science' god (by that segment of Christianity that believes that) seems to have coincided with the inability to locate the previously believed-in 'inside-of-science' god in any of the fields in which we've made progress in recent years.
Of course you can defend your position (that your god has always been outside of science) using scripture - but history says otherwise. In addition, there are those whose views are the opposite of yours but who can use exactly the same techniques of interpretation to conduct a scriptural defence of their position.
When two incompatible positions are taken using the same source (and interpretive methods) as validation of the argument, how do you know who has it right?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 25, 2009 12:43 AM
Francis Collins does buy into a biological design argument, only its for moral sense rather than eyeballs. On the cosmic side, he also advocates the fine-tuning argument. Those arguments turn on the same reasoning - or flaws in reasoning if you will - that other design arguments in creationism do. Both of those arguments have been in creationist literature for a long time. If creationists were halfway smart about their propaganda, they'd just cite him and his perceived authority for those arguments and leave it at that.
Posted by: Jason S. | June 25, 2009 1:28 AM
Wowbagger, OM
I would have a issue with that, since it is, in my opinion, contra such famous passages as Rom. 1:20 and Ps. 19:2. I do agree that that creation (revealed by science) only points to a creator, not to a specific god.
Of course, it doesn’t point to a creator for everyone—but that’s always been the case, and not just in the miracle of creation. Vast numbers of Jews of the Exodus saw explicit miracles on a daily basis and yet had no faith. Likewise for many who witnessed Jesus’ miracles.
That’s not my position. I stated that my faith is strengthened by advances in science. How do you get that God is outside science from that? And I certainly still believe that God intervenes in the world. After all, I’m saved. I didn’t do that. I had nothing to do with that. That required supernatural intervention.
I don't know where I fit in your taxonomy because, again, I see God more clearly as science advances. I think that is the position of most scientist/believers, and it gets easier, not harder, all the time--at least in the present era of science. Look at some scientific cosmologies of the past: Laplace’s universe as a differential equation, or Steady State universes. Contrast them with modern cosmology with accelerated expansion, vast quantities of dark matter and dark energy and other exotic beauties--some of which exhibit fine tuning on a mind numbing scale (e.g., the cosmological constant and the degree of nonuniformity) There is no question in my mind that the modern cosmologies—(which may turn out to be incorrect) are easier, not harder, to harmonize with a creator.
At some level you don't. That's always the case. In the classic battle of Calvinism v. Arminianism, who is right? Who knows? The good news is that our salvation does not depend on being right. As Christians we can plod along, disagreeing on interpretations and forming ~104 denominations reflecting our differences and, at some level, it doesn’t matter, though it may be displeasing to God—I don’t know. But there is no salvation by believing or denying Young Earth Creationism, or theistic evolution, or Calvinism, or the clarity or obscurity of God in modern science.
Posted by: heddle | June 25, 2009 5:32 AM
Scott Hanley, Original Graphics means 'unattributed reproductions' of old cartoons of Darwin as a monkey.
The whole book is now online for everyone to read. Basically Ray has cut most of the second half of the book and Darwins own intro.
Posted by: BathTub | June 25, 2009 7:50 AM
Heddle
When looking at the same evidence brings conflicting interpretations, then what is different is the mindsets of the observers, which pre-exist the observation. Observers whose faith in god is reinforced already have belief in god, and are not brought to a belief in god by the observed evidence. A more interesting inquiry if it could be pursued scientifically might be the sources of belief. These would have to operate before the observation is made, fixing the mindset by which the observation is carried out. How do you suppose a scientific inquiry into sources might be charted and conducted?
Posted by: Tossup | June 25, 2009 8:17 AM
Tossup,
I more or less agree. The unconverted do not seek God, only the converted. (See Rom 3:11.)
Posted by: heddle | June 25, 2009 8:31 AM
heddle "If the universe had been LaPlacian--well that would have been, by contrast, quite inelegant and ugly."
You, sir, do LaPlace a great injustice (not having as much data as we do would inevitably lead to a simpler model of the universe. Obviously). Pistols at dawn!
Michael Heath "Does anyone know if Comfort actually drives a livable wage or even a comfortable living spewing this propaganda to brain-damaged social conservatives?"
He lives cheap, as repetition costs nothing. Upkeep on his magnificent 80s pornstar moustache, however, is a bear.
Green beret wannabe "So much for free speech."
Nowhere here to I see anyone trying to take away Comforts right to free speech.
Also, "Wannabe"? That sounds...foreign! What are you, one of them Japanish? Interloper!
heddle "Vast numbers of Jews of the Exodus saw explicit miracles on a daily basis and yet had no faith."
I'm quite sure that they were still getting over the shock of being in something that didn't happen (or, at least, didn't happen on anywhere near the scale or scope of the biblical account).
"Likewise for many who witnessed Jesus’ miracles."
They were probably thinking whateveritis that non-believers think while watching this guy (who, admittedly, has pretty awesome hair).
"After all, I’m saved."
Are you sure? I mean, everyone says that about themselves. It's easy, apparently, to tell when the other guy is, um, incorrectly Christian, but the self-Christian rating, surprisingly, approaches 100%. (It's sort of like asking people how smart/talented they are. It turns out that everyone is above average)
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 25, 2009 8:40 AM
The unconverted do not seek God, only the converted. (See Rom 3:11.)
If Romans says that, then Romans is just plain demonstrably wrong. The unconverted do indeed seek God. Maybe not heddle's God, but they do seek spiritual connection in whatever form they might find it, or expect to find it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 25, 2009 9:25 AM
Professor Heddle does it again! If a 'troll' is defined as someone who turns every discussion, whatever it's initial topic, into a discussion of the troll's ideas, then Professor Heddle is the most successful -- and literate, and intelligently wrong-headed -- troll in the history of the Internet.
I want to remind everybody of one thing that is the very trap that the Creationists want you to fall into. I am an atheist. I also fully accept the obvious truth of evolution. These last two statements have no connection with each other.
(Okay, to be very technical they do in that it seems impossible to imagine an atheistic creationist.)
I was an evolutionist some years before I realized I had no choice but to accept I was an atheist. In fact, Roman Catholicism, the religion I grew up in, fully accepted evolution -- as the 'mechanism through which God brought about his creation.' I had no problem in accepting the logic of this as a believer, nor do I have any problem with the logic (as contrasted to the premise) of this now. (The only argument against it requires a biblical literalism so absurd that it is immediately shown as such.)
But the fallacy that the Creationists trap you into, and you so frequently tumble into is the reverse. If evolution were disproven tomorrow, this, by itself would say absolutely nothing about the truth of Creationism. Even were 'Intelligent Design' to be shown true, this would not in anyway prove that 'the Designer' had any connection with the christian choice of Diety.
Can we please try and remember this and it will keep us from chasing their own illogic?
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 25, 2009 9:42 AM
What is a stream "frozen in three"? Three what? And why would "not seeing any frozen streams in the woods" make one an atheist? You can see frozen streams in the woods easily enough in say, northern Maine, during mid-winter - would seeing one make you a theist?
Posted by: Confused Peter | June 25, 2009 11:55 AM
Pete - In my neck of the woods, definitely. ;) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 25, 2009 12:07 PM
Michael Heath, comfort takes a wage of about 125 thousand dollars from the ministry which takes in about 5 million a year.
Posted by: BathTub | June 25, 2009 3:19 PM
What jackoffs! For the umpteenth time, as regards DNA and everything else in the natural universe, natural selection is the very opposite of an "accident", or blind chance. Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, as he repeatedly stated: his numerous references to "God" were purely metaphorical. And while Darwin may have been a racist by the standards of our time, he was at least a stauch opponent of slavery, while many Christian ministers of his time, which were almost invariably creationists, defended the abominable practice. Cameron and Comfort's arguments are typical creationist ones, full of distortions, lies demagoguery-everything but facts.
Posted by: Raymond Minton | June 25, 2009 4:41 PM
Ed, quoting the sales pitch:
Hitler's undeniable connections to the theory
Y'know, maybe it's just my perception, but anyone dumb enough to try to make this connection again after the bitch-slapping Expelled received for making this argument deserves exactly what they're going to get: a swift kick in the tuchus from people who are, well, sane.
Unfortunately, those aren't the people who'll but this book. The people who will buy this book are the same people who sit in the choir all the time and love being preached to by jackasses like Comfort and Cameron.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | June 25, 2009 9:11 PM
Some idiot wrote:
So much for free speech.
Then why am I reading your comment?
I always knew the radicals would take over the nation.
"I always knew the Bavarian Illuminati controlled the radio in my fillings..."
They have the white house, senate, congress, and now the education department.
And your virginal (?) white daughters. Don't forget that.
Oh, well they still loose.
(Nah. Too easy...)
We conservatives still run the military and without it, all else is junk anyway.
So, how did you take failing the psych test during Basic? Not well, eh?
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | June 25, 2009 9:18 PM
Okay, to be very technical they do in that it seems impossible to imagine an atheistic creationist.
A long time ago I once believed that aliens built Stonehenge and tinkered with humans to help us evolve into a sapient species. Does that count?
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 25, 2009 11:58 PM
If Romans says that, then Romans is just plain demonstrably wrong. The unconverted do indeed seek God. Maybe not heddle's God, but they do seek spiritual connection in whatever form they might find it, or expect to find it.
Well sure there's all kinds of dumb stuff in there. Loopy nonsense proclamations by religious loopy people. Like for example, people can move mountains. Yaahhhh, uh huh.
Posted by: 386sx | June 26, 2009 1:29 AM
I met an actual british biologist recently. Yesterday, i ran into him, while he and some other folks were having drinks and a nosh at the local brewpub. He and I were yakking about this'n'that and I mentioned Comfort's latest assault on intellect. He rolled his eyes and told me exactly what he thought of Ray. He also told me that Dawkins has a new book coming out in September. He said he's looking forward to it, because it's all just science.
I think I may have to audit one of the gentleman's classes.
Posted by: democommie | June 26, 2009 7:57 AM