…and this is a 
The copy-&-paste creationist is a familiar figure in internet debates — they don't have an original idea in their head, but they know how to copy some long screed off the internet and paste it into a comment box, almost always without attribution, or even a link back to their source. I am completely unsurprised by the fact that Ray Comfort is a plagiarist who ripped off a brief biography of Darwin.
He stole the one piece of his introductory essay to the Origin that wasn't awful. I suspect the rest, though, is of similarly dubious provenance.
The remainder of the pamphlet is as expected. DNA is too improbable to arise by chance, there are no transitional fossils, Hitler was a "Darwinist", evolution and atheism share joint ideology, the eye is irreducibly complex, et cetera et cetera. He even trots out old nonsense about evolution and thermodynamics.
Anyone want to bet that if you take pieces of the creationist part of Comfort's essay and plug them into google, you'll find he's parroting lots of familiar creationist sources?
Comments
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 4, 2009 2:44 PM
It's not like any cretinist has a new argument, so why not just copy something old?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 4, 2009 2:45 PM
It is something that they're generally so dull that they have to steal the lies and stupidity of others. But it's sort of inevitable, given their approach to "truth," which is to find written some "absolute truth" which isn't to be questioned. Indeed, to copy likely seems better to them, because you don't mess around with revealed information.
And since they can't, aren't even allowed to, question what they've heard as "truth," there's no way they're going to do anything but copy or, at best, paraphrase the ignorant rants against science and scientists that they've read, without troubling to learn what we actually say, the evidence that we provide.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | November 4, 2009 2:45 PM
But he apologized for the male/female thing, a breaking story that is an exclusive sccop of the Thread Everlasting, thanks to Feynmaniac.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 4, 2009 2:45 PM
Damnit, and I just applauded Ray on the eternal thread for apologizing for his idiotic 'what evolved first, male or female?' argument. Do creationist even know what the word 'honesty' means?
Posted by: daveau
|
November 4, 2009 2:47 PM
Isn't that like, you know, illegal?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 4, 2009 2:49 PM
I saw that and was amazed, since they almost never apologize for lying.
But what prompted him to admit it now, when he's been told repeatedly what a stupid idea it was for years now? Is it just random, like a cat suddenly darting off for no reason at all?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Ric | November 4, 2009 3:02 PM
Someone needs to contact Ms. Scott so she can reveal this in US News & World Report.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 4, 2009 3:06 PM
Josh and David Marjanović (and a few others as well) will recall Nat Weeks, who had the gall to use "Truth Matters" as a sig while ganking stuff wholesale off of AIG (and also from PNAS, as I recall) as his "arguments".
Feh.
Posted by: flyonthewall | November 4, 2009 3:09 PM
not surprised that Comfort doesn't have any ideas and steals others. I mean let's face it, the last original idea Comfort had was the banana. And we all know how well thought out that was. I wouldn't be surprised if everything that is published under his name is plagerized. The man lies for a living for crying out loud.
Posted by: hershey | November 4, 2009 3:10 PM
Well, its sort of an apology. He is apologizing because so many people *say* that he is misrepresenting evolution in this case. But, as written, he still doesn't understand why what he said is idiotic. Call it pleading ignorance. But, then, without ignorance he would be voiceless.
"I sincerely apologize for misrepresenting what Darwinian evolution says about the origin of males and females. I have checked out the references you have given me as to what the theory has to say about their genesis, read them again and again, and I still don’t understand what you believe. It doesn’t make sense to me because I can’t reconcile what I see in creation with what you would have me believe about evolution. Still, that doesn’t give me the right to misrepresent your beliefs, even if it was done in ignorance."
Posted by: kalibhakta
|
November 4, 2009 3:10 PM
He probably felt that the quotes were intelligently designed to fit his "argument," kind of like a banana fits--no--NO--!!!
Posted by: Stephen F Roberts | November 4, 2009 3:12 PM
He uses the old thermodynamics canard????
Wow!!! That's some old-school "debunking" there...
Posted by: flyonthewall | November 4, 2009 3:15 PM
As an aside, I watched the most amazing deconversion story on youtube last night
http://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3
yeah i probably didn't do the link correctly, sorry i'm challenged that way.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
November 4, 2009 3:16 PM
But... but... People who follow Teh Jebus and the Ten Commandments have the mostest morality n stuff!!!1!
I think we need to slap some stickers on the copies of Darwin's work this imbecile bastardized stating that Comfort's introduction is a criminal act of plagiarism.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 4, 2009 3:16 PM
That was a form of not-pology IMHO. He apologized for hurting our feelings by insulting our "beliefs".
He made no admittance that what he was really doing is denying that science had shown the evolution of sexes.
Because he doesn't think that it is science. It was a backhanded apology.
Posted by: Sven DIMIlo | November 4, 2009 3:22 PM
Notpology. Agreed.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 4, 2009 3:23 PM
Just left a comment on Comfort's blog asking about the plagiarism and linking to the aigbusted post. It said the comment was awaiting approval. Anyone wanna take bets that said comment will be posted?
Posted by: StealthDonkey | November 4, 2009 3:25 PM
A backhanded apology maybe, but "sincerely apologiz[ing] for misrepresenting what Darwinian evolution says about the origin of males and females" is a hell of a lot more than I thought I'd ever hear out of him.
Hey, it's better than nothing. If he can admit this then maybe he can admit his other faults, and at this rate he could accept evolution in only a few hundred years!
Posted by: hje | November 4, 2009 3:28 PM
Ask him: Ray, have you ever stolen? Have you ever told a lie?
Posted by: BathTub | November 4, 2009 3:41 PM
Feynmaniac if you posted a link it almost certainly won't be approved. that's against the posted rules over at his blog.
Ray was informed of this plagarism a while ago, it was bought up on the comments of this blog when it initially got publicity. Ray was informed of the plagiarism before he rewrote the intro. He decided not to fix it so it's clearly not an issue for him.
Posted by: Ewan R | November 4, 2009 3:44 PM
" Still, that doesn’t give me the right to misrepresent your beliefs, even if it was done in ignorance.""
If this was the case he'd surely have to just shut the hell up right? What would he have left to say.
Posted by: Holytape
|
November 4, 2009 3:44 PM
The whole book is a giant exercise in plagiarism. He took Darwin's work, slapped a few pages on it and the sold it under his name. It's like if I drew a Hilter mustache on the Mona Lisa and then sold it as my own, and claimed I was a great artist. Does it really matter if I drew the mustache myself or cut-and-pasted it from another picture?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 4, 2009 3:47 PM
Yeah Ray doesn't allow links, unless you're his lapdog Terry.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 4, 2009 3:54 PM
Didn't realize that. He some bizarre rules:
Posted by: cnocspeireag | November 4, 2009 3:56 PM
Isn't it obvious why Dawkins won't 'debate' creationists?
Most of us are missing the point here, we should not accuse Comfort of stupidity as he's making huge amounts of unearned money for himself. He's a clever con man.
We should be accusing him of cupidity, not stupidity.
He lies for his bank account, not for Jebus.
Posted by: AC Skeptic
|
November 4, 2009 4:09 PM
It appears MikeTheInfidel flagged this back on Oct 11.
click me
Mike says the source isn't sited in the book, but Oakland Skeptic seemed to imply it was. It this a change from the first to second addition? If Ray didn't have the book sited in the first addition then what little hope I might have that he is an honest man would be completely gone.
Posted by: Becky | November 4, 2009 4:34 PM
If creationists could think or reason they would not be creationists. Being a creationist requires a special kind of stupidity AND gullibility.
Posted by: Drosera
|
November 4, 2009 4:37 PM
PZ, I pointed this out on your own blog back in September. Sorry you didn't notice it.
Posted by: Gryllus | November 4, 2009 4:43 PM
Ray says he still doesn't understand the evolution of sex - despite reading all about and being told all about by patient posters. My students get it quick enough. If he is that thick he should stay out of the discussion. He got one thing right in his plagiarism though - the source text calls Darwins house 'Downe House' while Ray calls it 'Down House'. Please correct me if I am wrong but I always thought the extra 'e' was a later addition to the village's name and the house kept the original spelling. Unless I have it arsey-versey.
Posted by: franz dibbler | November 4, 2009 4:44 PM
Here's an older chap who pumps out lots of YEC rhetoric. There *is* a comment section and he usually replies.
http://www.examiner.com/x-12751-Birmingham-Biblical-Examiner
Posted by: JennyAnyDots | November 4, 2009 4:56 PM
Gryllus - that's right - Down House, Downe Village.
Posted by: SoreLoser | November 4, 2009 5:01 PM
Interesting...
I went over to the linked thread on Ray's blog and found this:
"Still, that doesn’t give me the right to misrepresent your beliefs, even if it was done in ignorance."
and, in a reply to a reply by James B.:
"James. Romans 1:18-20. Every atheist knows God exists. They are without excuse. I appreciate your concern. Thanks for sharing."
All I could think was "What a dispicable, lying POS!"
Posted by: CriticalAtheist | November 4, 2009 5:06 PM
Glad to see Ray admits to his ignorance of evolution. He doesn't seem to understand the implications of that. This is a man who's been arguing against evolution for probably his entire life and admits that he does understand the basics of it. What a maroon.
How anyone can follow what this guy says is beyond me. Especially when he's caught plagiarizing and misrepresenting. In Ray They Trust.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 4, 2009 5:07 PM
I read Comfort's not-pology and was unimpressed. After literally years of being told about the evolution of the sexes, he finally admits that he's been misrepresenting what "Darwinian evolution says." In the next paragraph he writes "a true atheist believes that nothing created everything." Thanks, Ray, for misrepresenting what atheists (or at least true atheists) "believe."
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | November 4, 2009 5:08 PM
Holytape
Been there, seen that.
http://www.marcelduchamp.net/L.H.O.O.Q.php
Posted by: Duff | November 4, 2009 5:08 PM
I think some sympathy for Comfort is due. Think of the degenerative effects a lifetime of cognitive dissonance is going to have on his system. I see him throwing up in his potty every night from the stress.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | November 4, 2009 5:17 PM
More Mona Lisa extensions. Some images are disturbing.
http://lunaticadesnuda.blogspot.com/search?q=mona+lisa
Posted by: Word Slinger | November 4, 2009 5:30 PM
Happy Birthday, Gram!
Gram Parsons 1946-1973
Posted by: Cain | November 4, 2009 5:52 PM
I'm really looking forward to his Jimmy Swaggertish apology.
Posted by: Bill Butler | November 4, 2009 5:55 PM
If you write your own book, you can honestly present your own information. If you distort and willfully misrepresent someone else’s creative work, it is blatantly dishonest. Ray Comfort’s stunt reeks of someone who has an “Attention Addiction” problem, but personal problems are a poor excuse for being dishonest.
(From: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Attention%20Addiction
Attention Addiction or an Attention Addict is a person who often does stupid things to get attention.)
Click on the URL for more on "The Deceitfulness of Ray Comfort" (About 40% of the way down)
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
November 4, 2009 6:04 PM
I don't find the "apology" at all Comforting.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | November 4, 2009 6:18 PM
I ran a CSI meter over Ray's version of Origin and it had too much to be simply a combination of simpler parts. Its irreducible complexity clearly indicated intelligent design on the part of a party that's likely but not necessarily Ray Comfort.
This comment was peer-reviewed by Steve Fuller for quality and precision.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | November 4, 2009 6:19 PM
I do so love when they do this, or even when they're not so specific and just try to paint evolution as racist and responsible for eugenics in general. As if racism and the mass slaughter of ethnic groups never happened before Darwin, and if it did, the bible was never used to support it. As if the Jewish people have only that damned Charles Darwin to blame for their mistreatment through history.I'm sorry, I'm not even American but the debacle in Maine has taken the last of any niceties I've tried to observe - Conservative religionists are scum. The above hypocrisy is only part of why they're scum, but they are scum.
I see no reason to bite my tongue any more. They embrace a worldview that is damaging and hurtful. They are scum. Ray Comfort is just a more vocal piece of scum.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 4, 2009 6:20 PM
Oh yeah, Nat "Plagiarism Matters" Weeks... fond memories...
BTW, the 2nd-Law-of-Thermodynamics stuff is so ignorant it is listed by Answers in Genesis among the "Arguments we believe creationists should not use".
Posted by: Biology Blogger | November 4, 2009 6:20 PM
Anyone with a mind could reject Comfort's stupid arguments. How do you solve a complexity problem, by adding more improbability???!?
Posted by: Chris | November 4, 2009 6:20 PM
The closing paragraph of the pdf version (http://assets.livingwaters.com/pdf/OriginofSpecies.pdf) starts with this:
===
Someone once graciously said, “I disapprove of what
you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
However, it seems that some contemporary atheists don’t share
such honorable convictions.
===
Why does he say 'someone'? In this context should not he have mentioned that this quote was found in The Friends of Voltaire, written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall as an epitome of the attitude of Voltaire?
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | November 4, 2009 6:22 PM
Brain Cell Stimulus For Lurking Fence Sitters #2
Why Didn't Anybody Tell Me?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
November 4, 2009 6:39 PM
Ray Comfort: If God didn't do it, I don't get it.
Posted by: cameronsnipples | November 4, 2009 7:17 PM
The latest babble from Ray-Ray:
Taking us Seriously
"Till you theists approach these serious questions honestly (i.e. drop quote mining, repeating nonsense like atheist believe 'everything from nothing' Evolution leads to Nazism, etc...) and provide answers of substance (with logic and objective evidence), then you have no rational basis to expect others to take you seriously."
You just don’t get it, do you? You are like a man who is slowly sinking in quicksand. You are about to face a terrible death and we are telling you that there is something you can do to get out. Instead of believing us, you rail at us that we should have answers to questions that you consider to be rational. Yet you are the one with the problem, not us. You are in the shadow of death, we aren’t. We have been saved from death.
I know that most of you think I’m deluded, or that I’m a snake oil salesman, or that I’m in this to get rich from my books. That’s just not true. I don't get royalties through books that are sold through my ministry. I draw an average wage. I don’t own a car. I ride a bike to work. I don’t have a jet. I fly domestic. Almost every time of the more than 5,000 times I have preached the gospel in the open air, I have given away money, not taken it. There’s no charge for you to be on this blog, and I don’t have advertising on it so that I can make money from it.
I say these things so that you can’t use me as an excuse for staying in your sins. I have cared enough about you to do all I can to warn you. I am completely free from your blood. That’s the Bible way of saying that I warned you about the reality of Hell, and you wouldn’t listen. You will be damned because of your own sins, and you will have no one to blame but yourself.
Posted by: Gryllus | November 4, 2009 7:21 PM
"Someone once graciously said, “I disapprove of what
you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
However, it seems that some contemporary atheists don’t share
such honorable convictions."
aaaargh! Are these the best arguments the creotins can come up with? Can Ray still not see that there is a world of difference between arguing different sides in a debate and being a LIAR, an OBFUSCATOR, deliberately OBTUSE and so far from getting the right end of the STICK he would have to look 'stick' up in a dictionary... *deep breath, pours Laphroaig with shaky hand*
Posted by: Sean Case | November 4, 2009 7:28 PM
Hitler was one of them round-Earthers, too.
Posted by: Word Slinger | November 4, 2009 7:57 PM
Chocolate Jesus
by Tom Waits
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wfamPW3Eaw
Don't go to church on Sunday
Don't get on my knees to pray
Don't memorize the books of the Bible
I got my own special way
I know Jesus loves me
Maybe just a little bit more
I fall down on my knees every Sunday
At Zerelda Lee's candy store
Well it's got to be a chocolate Jesus
Make me feel good inside
Got to be a chocolate Jesus
Keep me satisfied
Well I don't want no Abba Zabba
Don't want no Almond Joy
There ain't nothing better
Suitable for this boy
Well it's the only thing
That can pick me up
Better than a cup of gold
See only a chocolate Jesus
Can satisfy my soul
(Solo)
When the weather gets rough
And it's whiskey in the shade
It's best to wrap your savior
Up in cellophane
He flows like the big muddy
But that's ok
Pour him over ice cream
For a nice parfait
Well it's got to be a chocolate Jesus
Good enough for me
Got to be a chocolate Jesus
Good enough for me
Well it's got to be a chocolate Jesus
Make me feel good inside
Got to be a chocolate Jesus
Keep me satisfied
Posted by: Stwriley | November 4, 2009 8:03 PM
With all the professors and teachers commenting here, one might think that Comfort's intro could be run through a plagiarism check from TurnItIn.com. I'd do it myself, but our district doesn't subscribe (though I'm hoping, I'm hoping...) Someone on this thread must be at an institution that does. If Ray's done as badly with the whole text as he did with the bio section, then it will show up immediately in a search. Comfort's lazy, even for a plagiarist and thus easily caught out. He'll never openly admit it, even when confronted with direct evidence, but it will help debunk this garbage if something student's already know as their own watchdog tears Comfort to shreds too.
ThirtyFiveUp @ #35
We're lucky enough to have that one and several other Duchamp's here at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. They have a fantastic exhibit of his work on now, but it closes at the end of the week. Still, if you're in the area, it's worth a drive to see.
Posted by: Jean-François Bélisle | November 4, 2009 8:20 PM
I'm not surprised that the banana man did this and I'm baffled that anybody would be. This is a man who so lacks imagination that he didn't realize the homosexual innuendo behind his own (ever so popular) analogy!
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | November 4, 2009 8:43 PM
Off topic:
http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/Billboard-supporting-Atheism-upsets-some-Lakeland/_mpBHsRgpE2-fpXHhZODYA.cspx
"Billboard supporting Atheism upsets some Lakeland [Florida] drivers"
Yes, it's a "you are not alone" billboard. No, there's no poll, as far as I can tell. Yes, there's a video. No, it's not particularly balanced, though it's better than most.
Posted by: arachnophilia | November 4, 2009 8:59 PM
he apologized for the banana thing too. but only because of the massive ridicule on the internet.
conclusion: ridicule sort of works.
now if we could just ridicule him into learning some biology.
i'm concerned, however, that the "eye is too complex" was answered by darwin himself in the book ray just butchered. i seem to recall it being somewhere in chapter six, which i'm pretty sure is one of the chapters he actually left in. this tells me he didn't even read the book he edited.
Posted by: AJ | November 4, 2009 9:12 PM
When you read a biology text, and teach it--is that "parroting"?--then what is?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 4, 2009 9:18 PM
LOL!
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | November 4, 2009 9:20 PM
AJ:
Two differences.
First, PZ doesn't pretend he wrote the book. (Unless, of course, he wrote the book.)
Second, PZ understands what he's teaching. The book is useful as a guide, and as reference material, but fundamentally, the instruction comes from his brain, not the book.
Bananaman pretended to write things he didn't (point 1) and doesn't even understand it (point 2).
Posted by: Physicalist | November 4, 2009 9:25 PM
Ray says,
It's worth taking note of this explicit rejection of reason. He really doesn't care the least about evidence or rationality. He really does feel that he can say anything whatsoever -- if it will get you to accept Jesus -- truth be damned.
Very revealing. And very scary.
Posted by: Mike Wagner
|
November 4, 2009 9:41 PM
Ray likes to say every atheist knows there is a god.
Well, we could argue every Christian knows there isn't, but can justify any nasty bullshit action based on random samplings of scripture.
Posted by: flyonthewall | November 4, 2009 10:01 PM
@49
To paraphrase Pat Condell....
If god exists, I want him to tell me himself. I don't want to hear it from ignorant, lying asshat who can't pass grade 3 science. And in case you're wondering Ray.. that means you.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | November 4, 2009 10:12 PM
AJ,
You must have had some pretty bad teachers.
No science teacher I had in high school and beyond ever merely repeated what was in a text.
Good science teachers have a habit of wanting to get students to be critical thinkers and work things out themselves. Go figure, huh?
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | November 4, 2009 11:29 PM
flyonthewall, thanks for posting that. I came across his "2.0" video a few months ago but neglected to fav/sub him. I was surfing hard, far, and wide that night and he got away from me.
____
[a href="URL goes here, leave the quotes">Displayed text goes here[/a]
Replace the square brackets on the ends with > angle brackets and you are good to go.
Posted by: dg | November 4, 2009 11:32 PM
Tried submitting to turnitin.com via my Lab TA account. Turns out it wasn't very useful, considering this is now absolutely everywhere on the atheist interwebs. Victims of our own success, I suppose.
Posted by: Aenthropi | November 5, 2009 12:03 AM
That poor man, Mr Comfort. He cries out for relief from the torment in his soul; for he is obviously in denial of the TRUTH of the Spaghedeity. He can be conclusively shown to be rebelling against what he knows to be true of the noodly origin of the universe.
Before you laugh at my proof, remember that, in his noodly wisdom issuing from his succulent, divine body, the Spaghedeity makes himself known to us in mysterious ways, and know this is true: Ray Comfort is a Copy-Pasta Creationist.
Posted by: Blair | November 5, 2009 12:20 AM
Ray Comfort learnt his lines by rote many years ago. He hasn't learned a thing since then.
He is either seriously deluded or intent on deceiving. Either way, it's not a good look for Ray, and serves as yet another reminder (as if we needed any) that creationists are unmitigated liars and morons.
Posted by: pvrugg | November 5, 2009 12:21 AM
"...my agenda isn’t primarily to convince you that evolution is wrong, or even that God exists. It to see you saved from a very real Hell through repentance and faith in Jesus..."
So... how is getting us to believe in Jesus NOT also getting us to believe that god exists? Just curious, Ray!!
Posted by: alextangent | November 5, 2009 12:23 AM
#59, Benjamin said;
AJ is home schooled; I'd bet he's had little if any science teaching.
Posted by: Tim | November 5, 2009 1:25 AM
The fact that it's been said before, no matter how many times, seems to add validity to their stupid points - even without sources. After all, they only need one source, whether it be the bible, the pope, or some revered, mountain-top dwelling 'master' of some kind.
Posted by: DonRocko | November 5, 2009 1:39 AM
Ray has just simply proved that cultural memes (in this case, text on Darwin), like DNA can be easily replicated with slight mutations, especially without intelligent intervention!
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist
|
November 5, 2009 2:19 AM
Here's the list of Canadian universities that was Originally posted at Living Waters Canada. The target date is November 24th. The website still says the following...
Again this list is second hand, I received them both by email from a reliable source, hence no link. If you need a list of the USA schools as they stood when Ray took them down from public view, see this comment.
Ottawa University
Carleton University
Queen's University
University of Toronto
York University
McMaster University
Guelph University
Brock University
U of Western Ontario
Concordia University
McGill University
U of New Brunswick
Memorial U of Newfoundland
Dalhousie University
University of Manitoba
U of Saskatchewan
University of Alberta
University of Calgary
Simon Fraser University
U of British Columbia
University of Victoria
Posted by: Islander | November 5, 2009 2:32 AM
As far as I know, PZ hasn't yet posted Scott's latest reply to Comfort.
Sorry if it's been posted already.
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist
|
November 5, 2009 2:52 AM
Just a thought...
Anyone attending these targeted schools might be able to pick up some info on the giveaway by poking around any christian "clubs" that are on campus. Say hi, get on an email list, etc. I can imagine getting near the date the buzz would be uncontainable. I wouldn't be surprised to find that most if not all of these schools have one. It's possible they could be launching from local head churches but it would make more sense to utilize groups that are already on campus.
Another idea I had was finding someone (PZ, Eugenie Scott, other?) who could create a "supplement" to the "banana edition" that would explain Ray's fallacies, ignorance, and other misrepresentations. A statement about how none of this (pulling out a dead man's bones and thumping on them) really has any bearing on our current knowledge or the evidence contained within the modern synthesis. Just something short and concise that could be easily printed on demand so anyone with the opportunity could hand these out alongside the banana edition ?
Posted by: ben | November 5, 2009 4:47 AM
What I don't understand is why Comfort or anybody else would think that anyone, particularly the tiny minority of die-hard xtian culture warriors who are the only possible market to begin with, would actually want to buy his bastardized Origin. Just because Comfort axed four chapters of the alleged naughty bits (?) and slapped on some plagiarized endpieces, why would the wingnuts and godbotherers want to read the words of the man who invented the religion of evilutionism, which Jesus said was wrong right there in the Bible somewhere? (Not that they'd know, most of them have clearly never actually read the Bible and merely worship their own inane apologetics, not any particular god.)
Amazon.com currently offers over five million other books that are selling better than this travesty. I assume their plan is to give away an assload of these in the hopes that some will end up in the hands of impressionable younger people (not that many of today's kids are in the habit of reading 150-year old books of any kind).
Posted by: clausentum | November 5, 2009 4:50 AM
In Germany they cynically say, copying out of one book is plagiarism, copying out of three books is research.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | November 5, 2009 5:42 AM
"We have been saved from death", says Ray.
Hmmm... How can you be so sure that god doesn't hate jerks and liars? Did he tell you personnally?
Posted by: DaveL
|
November 5, 2009 6:07 AM
Eppur si muore...
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
November 5, 2009 6:23 AM
Well, once again the creationists demonstrate that they have no concept of the honesty required for normal discourse.
I remember reading one of Tim LaHaye's books (why, you don't really want to know) that plagarised another book (written by an MD who also happened to be a Christian) very heavily. No credits, no nothing -- just outright copying.
In fundie circles, I think this sort of dishonesty and theft is not even noticed. They actually have much, much bigger problems to (not) think about.
Posted by: dave souza
|
November 5, 2009 7:23 AM
Not Raybanana's fault, but the source he nicked has it wrong...
"Two years later Darwin enrolled at Christ's College, Cambridge to study theology—a subject which he didn't enjoy either, with the intention of a career in the Church of England. As at Edinburgh, he often neglected his studies. In spite of this, he managed to pass his examinations in 1831 and left Cambridge."
Darwin enrolled for a BA course, not "to study theology" – a BA was required before doing detailed theology studies. The course did include study of theology texts, and Darwin enjoyed them so much that he could almost recite Paley's "Evidences of Christianity" by heart, later recalling "The logic of this book and as I may add of his Natural Theology gave me as much delight as did Euclid." He did well in his final exams, particularly in theology, and came 10th out of a pass list of 178 doing the ordinary degree. OK, he did goof off a lot in his first and second years, collecting beetles and horse riding, but then so did everyone else.
Posted by: jon | November 5, 2009 7:48 AM
"OK, he did goof off a lot in his first and second years, collecting beetles and horse riding, but then so did everyone else."
Did? Pfft! That's what college freshmen/sophomores do to this day! Horseback-beetle parties are where it's at!
Posted by: Alan B | November 5, 2009 9:26 AM
Background on Down House, mentioned earlier on the thread:
There is a good article about Down House on Wiki (note: Downe House is an independent all-girls boarding school).
One exerpt:
English Heritage has a web site about the house that might be of interest:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.14927
(several other pages as well)
Posted by: a lurker | November 5, 2009 9:55 AM
Has anyone contacted Dr. Stan Guffey over this?
It is almost certain he has not given permission or received any remuneration. Could he sue for money or get a restraining order preventing distribution of the books. Either way it would cost Comfort's organization money which they will be unable to use to support their campaign against science.
Comfort violated the law, violated the commandment not to steal, and should suffer the consequences.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 5, 2009 12:16 PM
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Day saved… oops, bad choice of words.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely
|
November 5, 2009 12:56 PM
What does Comfort hope to achieve with this giveaway? The Canadian universities on his list are mostly the big ones, with student populations of between 15,000 and 70,000.
For the sake of argument, let's say the average is 30,000. Multiply by 21 and the total is 630,000. 1000 books to be given away ends up being 1 copy for every 630 students.
Big Whoop.
This looks like a futile publicity stunt rather than attempt to "educate".
Posted by: momentofsciencetx | November 5, 2009 3:17 PM
The copy-&-paste creationist is a familiar figure in internet debates.
They have to be good at copy-&-paste how else can they generate all those degrees that their "experts" have.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 5, 2009 3:26 PM
-Big Whoop.
This looks like a futile publicity stunt rather than attempt to "educate".-
It is a publicity stunt. It wouldn't have been futile though if we hadn't been vocal about it. This kind of thing is exactly why the atheists can't be quiet.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 5, 2009 3:30 PM
-They have to be good at copy-&-paste how else can they generate all those degrees that their "experts" have.-
By posting at least 6 times on PZ's blog of course!
Posted by: Cain | November 5, 2009 4:57 PM
I asked him about it several times on his blog. I am SHOCKED to say that none of the comments, even though they fell within his guidelines, made it thru moderation.
Posted by: Anders from Sweden | November 5, 2009 8:00 PM
If one of my students would (and it sometimes happen) "write" a text like this, I'll rip it to pieces small as snow. And then tell him or her: EPIC FAIL!
This copying occurs more and more in school and starts becoming a serious problem. When adults (ok creationist are hardly that) can't understand this, how can we expect the kids to.
Posted by: ih | November 6, 2009 10:47 PM
If I had a dime for all the times I've seen atheists also copying and pasting arguments, I'd be richer than Bill Gates.
Both sides are guilty of this. Don't pretend this isn't true.
Posted by: Tucker Lieberman | November 28, 2009 9:38 AM
As the passages replicated, they underwent some chance mutations that enhanced their ability to replicate further, and eventually they grew into a book that looked as if someone had designed it by academic theft. But of course there was no such designer, I'm sure Comfort would say; the plagiarism happened by accident.
Posted by: aharleygyrl
|
December 1, 2009 12:12 AM
that idiot ray comfort and his idiot clone kirk cameron are too stupid to even come up with their own arguments. but, we knew this would be the case. he should have cited the source. he shoulda just stuck with his banana argument. it's original and just as effective.
Posted by: SourPersimmon
|
December 4, 2009 9:18 AM
Dr. Guffey spoke to the Knoxville weekly paper about Comfort plagiarizing his biography of Darwin.
http://www.metropulse.com/news/2009/dec/02/ut-professor-considers-legal-action-over-use-charl/