…and this is a 
I could only get two paragraphs into that sleazebag's reply in the debate about his Origin giveaway before I had to close the window and throw him away.
A major concern of Genie Scott was that the copy of On the Origin of Species sent to her by my publisher was missing "four crucial chapters," as well as Darwin's introduction. She will be pleased to know that the second printing of 170,000 copies (the one that we will give to students) is the entire book. Not one word will be omitted.
Then perhaps Comfort should have acknowledged that it was a dishonest move on his part in the first place?
Most troubling to me, though, is the fact that an ignoramus like Comfort can raise the kind of money to publish that many copies of a book on such short notice. Who is his sugar daddy? Or can you really tap into that much free-flowing cash by appealing to the ignorant masses of America? It's rather disturbing.
And then, of course, there's the fact that Ray Comfort is an idiot, putting his name on science books. I do not use the word "idiot" lightly here, either — the man is demonstrably ignorant and obtuse. Here's his first argument for his cause:
Scott quoted a famous geneticist, who said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." I would like to drop one word, so that the quote is true. It should read, "Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution." For example, evolution has no explanation as to why and how around 1.4 million species of animals evolved as male and female. No one even goes near explaining how and why each species managed to reproduce (during the millions of years the female was supposedly evolving to maturity) without the right reproductive machinery.
No one?
NO ONE?
I have explained this stuff to him repeatedly. I first covered it almost a year ago, when he misrepresented Darwin and claimed that women evolved millions of years after men. Comfort is the kook who claimed that Darwin believed that humans initially reproduced by asexual fission…and now he's putting out an edition of the Origin?
I know he has seen my explanation, because he responded to it in the august pages of Whirled Nut Daily. Of course, what he did was acknowledge this explanation:
This has been explained to him multiple times: evolution does explain this stuff trivially. Populations evolve, not individuals, and male and female elephants evolved from populations of pre-elephants that contained males and females. Species do not arise from single new mutant males that then have to find a corresponding mutant female - they arise by the diffusion of variation through a whole population, male and female.
I also wrote a lengthy explanation of elephant evolution that points out that no species of elephant ever had to re-evolve sex. I am now amused to note that the first comment on that post is a one-liner: "He won't get it." How true.
He's still repeating his argument that speciation occurred by a male (it's always a male to him, I don't know why) evolving first and having to go on a quest to find a female of the same species. He has a remarkably discontinuous view of the nature of evolutionary change, and seems either utterly unwilling or incapable of thinking of species evolving as populations.
I'm also rather amazed that the media, in this case US News & World Report, will freely grant space to such a dishonest loon. I know they're relying on Genie Scott to come back with a rebuttal, but there ought to be a moment where the people publishing his nonsense stop a moment and say, "Wait a minute—this guy is writing pure drivel, and we're publishing it!" Come on, US News, a little self-awareness and responsibility would be a welcome change.
Comments
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 3, 2009 9:30 AM
Most troubling to me, though, is the fact that an ignoramus like Comfort can raise the kind of money to publish that many copies of a book on such short notice. Who is his sugar daddy? Or can you really tap into that much free-flowing cash by appealing to the ignorant masses of America? It's rather disturbing.
PZ, evangelicals, as a group, have a lot of money.
Posted by: Newfie
|
November 3, 2009 9:32 AM
God made Ray bananas.
Posted by: Stanton
|
November 3, 2009 9:36 AM
Is Ray Comfort that stupid to assume that people are that stupid to believe him when he stupidly asks if males and females had to evolve individually? His science teachers did teach him about the Birds and the Bees, right?
Right?
Posted by: Etcetera | November 3, 2009 9:36 AM
The problem is that Ray isn't the only person who thinks this way. I guarantee that there are thousands of people who have the same questions and simply haven't had the opportunity to examine their misconceptions. Maybe if they read someone safe like Ray in the paper, they'll also be exposed to Genie's rebuttals in a way that they can (hopefully) understand.
Posted by: Pete | November 3, 2009 9:37 AM
Even when I was a creationist, carrying within myself an ignorance of actual biology of epic proportions; I never would have asked where each new species's male finds its new mate. That is just a bucket of dumb. I was ignorant, but in my defense I never actually studied biology and all my presentations of evolution were creation distortions (all pre-internet). What's Ray's excuse? Does he ever actually read anything? Has he ever studied biology, like perhaps at a 101 level, or at least as far into high school to learn about sexual reproduction?
I think it is too late for Ray. Even if he suddenly realized how incredibly stupid his argument is, I doubt he would ever admit it. He has invested to much, and would probably be embarrassed (he should be).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 3, 2009 9:38 AM
It's par for the course Ray stupidity. This is the same idiocy dripping bullshit he spews at his blog daily.
Posted by: Wes | November 3, 2009 9:40 AM
It might actually be interesting for someone to do a little investigative journalism on where Comfort's money is coming from. A campaign to hand out 170,000 copies for free at 100 universities across the country must cost millions of dollars. Somebody is financing this.
Posted by: Caustic Gnostic | November 3, 2009 9:43 AM
This is what happens when village idiots turn pro.
Posted by: Pete | November 3, 2009 9:45 AM
Oh my god it is worse then I thought.
Posted by: Zeno
|
November 3, 2009 9:47 AM
You're being disingenuous here, right, PZ? It was obviously the male of the species first because that's how God did it in Genesis. It would be unComfortable to think otherwise.
Posted by: paulh | November 3, 2009 9:47 AM
The rest of it doesn't get any better...
Someone had linked to this in the last post and I was wondering if Ray Comfort was seriously suggesting that males and females had evolved separately. This gets a big "double yew tee eff" from this undedumacated lay person.
The rest of the article, to save you the pain of reading it, appears to consist of "no transitional fossils", "no intermediate species", "What use is half an eye?" and "I saw it on TV so evolution must be wrong".
There's also what looks like an out of context quote from Charles Darwin. Even so, just because someone says a theory's too tricky to understand doesn't suddenly invalidate the theory in question.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 3, 2009 9:50 AM
He's been pushing that line of dumbfuckery for a while now.
Posted by: J.Klo | November 3, 2009 9:53 AM
How sure are we that he's actually got 170,000 copies of this book, and that he's actually planning to give them away? I've been trying to find a list of the schools where the giveaway will take place (so I'd know whether to look for them at my school), to no avail. I know he's the kind of guy who'd do something like this, but isn't he also the kind of guy who'd lie about doing this?
Posted by: InfuriatedSciTeacher | November 3, 2009 9:53 AM
Just did an impromptu survey of about 30 HS juniors and seniors... Nearly all of them laughed at Comfort's argument, several of them hysterically. One poor girl looks rather confused right now... time to re-explain biology in a physical science course.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | November 3, 2009 9:56 AM
Does this mean he will sell an unabridged copy on Amazon.com now? With someone like this you have to parse every phrase and question every word he says.
Posted by: Rik G | November 3, 2009 9:56 AM
"I'm also rather amazed that the media, in this case US News & World Report, will freely grant space to such a dishonest loon."
Not only that, but then they have this candy-assed disclaimer that they apply to both Ray Comfort AND Eugenie Scott...
"Neither God & Country nor U.S. News necessarily endorses their views."
There's a time and a place for "he said/she said" journalism, and there's a time and a place to call a crackpot a crackpot!
Posted by: black_wolf72 | November 3, 2009 9:57 AM
Ray has gotten it long ago. His reading comprehension is not as sub-par as he would like us to believe; but it's certainly also not as great as his sycophants who parrot his every 'clincher' would like.
When he left NZ, he found an audience of millions, scores of millions, in America who were thirsting to be comfortable in their ignorance, who wished to be called virtuous for mentally abusing themselves and their children. It's a common need in humans, like every other social animal, to be content and to find affirmation. This is Ray's product. A few dollars here and there, little books, prints, videos, dvds, audio, pamphlets, tracts, stickers. Plus more than a few wads of nice big greenbacks for saying the same stuff in a church or in a Bible college hall every other week.
All tax-exempt, on quick delivery, always available. Jesus in mass production. A big friendly box of mollycoddling stupid delivered right to your doorstep.
Posted by: Dalkordigo | November 3, 2009 9:58 AM
PZ -> "I'm also rather amazed that the media, in this case US News & World Report, will freely grant space to such a dishonest loon. I know they're relying on Genie Scott to come back with a rebuttal, but there ought to be a moment where the people publishing his nonsense stop a moment and say, "Wait a minute—this guy is writing pure drivel, and we're publishing it!" Come on, US News, a little self-awareness and responsibility would be a welcome change."
But if you take the stance that some people should get less voice in media, exposure on inet and so on. You get attacked for being against free speech.
Sure everyone can has their opinion and even voice them. But anyone that repeatedly is proud of his ignorance and just ignores truth is not worthy of anything but self-sponsored exposure. Especially if there is sound arguments to draw that implies that he/she infact are doing it just for the money.
For example P. Popoff.
These are persons that should be publicly ridiculed, not presented as equals to actual experts.
Posted by: alopiasmag
|
November 3, 2009 10:01 AM
The idiots of this world never cease to amaze me.
Posted by: Tony Reed | November 3, 2009 10:02 AM
I would not blame Eugenie Scott for refusing to respond to this response by Comfort. It is obvious the conversation gcan go nowhere productive now.
Once again, he searches for the gaps in knowledge for his God when he cites sexual reproduction (of which there are several potential and viable theories - type "evolution of sex" into wikipedia). Apparently creationists can't give up the spectre of "irreducible complexity" no matter how many times each example of it is dismantled.
He muddles his view even more by citing "partially-formed" structures as if evolution would predict such a thing. Richard Dawkins effectively destroyed this argument with several hands-on examples in his videos "Waking Up in the Universe" and "Climbing Mount Improbable".
He continues by quote-mining Darwin - This is what you usually see when creationists quote evolutionary scientists. The quote, in the original letter, appears in the middle of a paragraph. It is flanked, before and after, by statements which establish a completely different context for the quote. You can read the letter in its' entirety here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html
The gaps in knowledge are made ludicrously appropriate by the fact that Comfort gets his science from the DISCOVERY CHANNEL. It's no wonder he is so off on his science. It makes me wonder why he doesn't offer a critique of "Ancient Aliens" while he's at it.
Comfort confuses belief (a religious concept) with acceptence. One believes the Bible. No one "believes" evolution. It is only "accepted" as the most accurate explanation of the evidence. If a completely different theory is formulated which more accurately describes what we see in nature AND makes more testably accurate predictions, science will abandon current evolutionary theories. In 150 years, no such theory has bee proposed. Creationists have made no effort at all.
Comforts response demonstrates quite lucidly that the entire arsenal of creationist evidence is based on fallacies, quote-mines, misrepresentations, and/or blatant lies.
As if that isn't enough, he actually quote-mines Scott. "More fossils will provide more details." does not in any way denote a lack of apparent conclusiveness. The difference here is that Scott, herself, is able to respond as opposed to Darwin, who is understandably silent.
This is what surprised me... Comfort then shows his absolute ignorance when Scott refers to WELL-KNOWN transitionals. He really, truly, pretends never to have heard of feathered dinosaurs. Is this even possible? Where has his head been? Was there a banana up there, too?
His final paragraph puts it ALL in perspective when he states, "I'm not an expert on the subject of evolution"... No kidding!
I'm sure Eugenie Scott will have a much more eloquent and detailed response to Comforts moronic ramblings... If she even bothers.
Posted by: Jimmy Groove | November 3, 2009 10:02 AM
The problem, of course, is not that Ray Comfort can't understand the science; he's probably smarter than he appears. After all, he has organized one heck of a cult for himself.
The problem isn't what Ray Comfort isn't getting, but what he is getting: money and adoration. Heck, that's almost enough to make me consider selling out reality and writing creationist drivel, and I have an actual bio degree so I'd probably be an instant celebrity among them. But unfortunately, I have a bit too much morality for that.
Posted by: JackC
|
November 3, 2009 10:03 AM
It is that one person in 30 that makes him dangerous. Otherwise, he would just be an amusing sideshow.
JC
Posted by: Tony Reed | November 3, 2009 10:04 AM
I would not blame Eugenie Scott for refusing to respond to this response by Comfort. It is obvious the conversation can go nowhere productive now.
Once again, he searches for the gaps in knowledge for his God when he cites sexual reproduction (of which there are several potential and viable theories - type "evolution of sex" into wikipedia). Apparently creationists can't give up the spectre of "irreducible complexity" no matter how many times each example of it is dismantled.
He muddles his view even more by citing "partially-formed" structures as if evolution would predict such a thing. Richard Dawkins effectively destroyed this argument with several hands-on examples in his videos "Waking Up in the Universe" and "Climbing Mount Improbable".
He continues by quote-mining Darwin - This is what you usually see when creationists quote evolutionary scientists. The quote, in the original letter, appears in the middle of a paragraph. It is flanked, before and after, by statements which establish a completely different context for the quote. You can read the letter in its' entirety here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html
The gaps in knowledge are made ludicrously appropriate by the fact that Comfort gets his science from the DISCOVERY CHANNEL. It's no wonder he is so off on his science. It makes me wonder why he doesn't offer a critique of "Ancient Aliens" while he's at it.
Comfort confuses belief (a religious concept) with acceptence. One believes the Bible. No one "believes" evolution. It is only "accepted" as the most accurate explanation of the evidence. If a completely different theory is formulated which more accurately describes what we see in nature AND makes more testably accurate predictions, science will abandon current evolutionary theories. In 150 years, no such theory has bee proposed. Creationists have made no effort at all.
Comforts response demonstrates quite lucidly that the entire arsenal of creationist evidence is based on fallacies, quote-mines, misrepresentations, and/or blatant lies.
As if that isn't enough, he actually quote-mines Scott. "More fossils will provide more details." does not in any way denote a lack of apparent conclusiveness. The difference here is that Scott, herself, is able to respond as opposed to Darwin, who is understandably silent.
This is what surprised me... Comfort then shows his absolute ignorance when Scott refers to WELL-KNOWN transitionals. He really, truly, pretends never to have heard of feathered dinosaurs. Is this even possible? Where has his head been? Was there a banana up there, too?
His final paragraph puts it ALL in perspective when he states, "I'm not an expert on the subject of evolution"... No kidding!
I'm sure Eugenie Scott will have a much more eloquent and detailed response to Comforts moronic ramblings... If she even bothers.
Posted by: NewDeli | November 3, 2009 10:05 AM
How classy Comfort. You really wonder why? Go back one sentence and answer your own question.
He should at least have the balls to defend his material with more than a "She doesn't want you to read it, it must be true" argument.
Coward.
Posted by: Mentat | November 3, 2009 10:07 AM
I don't understand, why is there even a debate between Scott and Comfort? It grants Comfort far too much legitimacy. One cannot profitably debate an idiot.
Posted by: Orakio | November 3, 2009 10:08 AM
Wow. Just... Wow. I've never before seen an outright rejection of the scientific method. And really, I can't help but think that this is the primary issue. The authoritarian personality type is so reliant on revealed truth that it simply cannot comprehend the slow refinement of science. There is nothing but revelation, just compartments in the mind that are filed away until the right stimuli come around to pull that bit out of the box. How can you argue with that?
Well, we're going to have to figure out how to break their little mental boxes, so various ideas have to actually contact each other in their minds. Then you can start pouring reason in.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | November 3, 2009 10:20 AM
Also on that blog, a poll: will you read Ray's mutilated "Origin"? (ok, so not quite their wording)
My comment (yes, in prose, even though it took longer):
I had to vote "yes", although not for the reasons Comfort might hope.
I wish to use his mutilated version as a case study; Ray has admitted his ignorance about evolution, and has demonstrated it thoroughly on many occasions, yet he puts out this book. Why? Clearly, not because it is a new take on evolution; Ray is not nearly qualified, by his own admission, to take on that task. Ray's book is a pure propaganda tool in a losing battle to prop up a bronze-age world view. As such, it has the desperate air of certain inevitable defeat, thinly papered over with bravado and bull. It is the final flurry of frenzied panic in a cornered rat.
How can anyone be persuaded by his lies? Again, the case study is telling. A population of increasingly irrelevant believers, a fringe group even within religion, is casting about for any semblance of support, like a drowning man clutches even at straws. It doesn't matter that Ray is not merely wrong but laughably so--what is important is that he has a national audience; he has been allowed to share the stage with Eugenie Scott! He must be important!
Like 9/11 Truthers, Moon-Walk Denialists, conspiracy theorists of all stripes, even the false *appearance* of evidence is enough to feed their addiction. Quote-mining half a clause from a sentence, ignoring context, clinging to a baseless interpretation in the face of the disconfirming evidence there within the very paragraph from which they ripped their demiquote, they will not admit they are wrong so long as they can cling to a blade of grass and not fall from the face of the earth.
It is not about the evidence. It is about themselves. They are terrified of being wrong. Scientists *welcome* disconfirming evidence; it's how we learn! Creationists, if they admitted the truth, would be forced to acknowledge that they have lived a lie, a bald-faced lie, an active and creative lie, and it has taken over their brain. Creationism does not, and cannot, learn from its mistakes. It is a house of cards; one mistake admitted and the whole thing collapses. This is why Comfort repeats his canards again and again, after having been corrected by experts time and again. He has replaced his brain with a mendacious fantasy, and to abandon it would leave him hollow.
Yes, I want a copy of Comfort's book. I want dozens, so my students don't have to pay for them. I promise, Ray, I will assign them to read your screed at the beginning, and we will treat it more seriously than you have.
Posted by: cm | November 3, 2009 10:22 AM
I agree with those who state that in all likelihood Ray Comfort is not stupid at all, has the ability to understand the basics of evolutionary biology, possibly does understand it, and is simply just a con artist.
He's a showman, was smart enough to hook Kirk Cameron into it, give it a fun name like "Way of the Master" and now loves every new lambasting he gets from Eugenie Scott or PZ, because it makes him the "noble underdog"--all the more reason for his backers to throw him more defense dollars.
Well played, Ray Comfort, well played.
(Other than that it is completely unethical)
Posted by: IaMoL | November 3, 2009 10:24 AM
Since God made Adam first to be his garden buddy/talking pet and then created Eve as an afterthought, all these evangelical fundie-idiots can't get it through their thick heads that females are the default (primary) sex and that males can't exist first. The understanding that evolution is carried through offspring isn't clear to them either, they've seen Altered States and they mistakenly think scientists believe a person can transmogrify into some atavistic ape-like creature or become a Star Trekian mega veiny-brained telepath - à la Dr. Jekyll.They recognize this as preposterous but for all the wrong reasons. The whole progeny/mutations idea just flies over their Aqua Netted brushed-back 'dos.
Posted by: Chester Burton Brown | November 3, 2009 10:24 AM
So...to what tactic do we turn when reason fails?
Clearly, reason is ineffective against Comfort or the poor, sweet, ape-like people who lack the neuronal wherewithal to appropriately doubt him. At least in the United States, it appears they have enough numbers that it would be disingenuous to dismiss their movement as merely "fringe." A metric buttload of morons have this guy's back.
Clearly, there are a lot of clever people who read and comment here -- have we any suggestions?
Personally, I'm stumped. Rigorous reason is pretty much my last line of defence short of tweaking someone's nose or kicking mud on their shoes.
Can we persuade morons? What is the cost if we don't even try? Would we be forced to be as dishonest as our opponents if we really did endeavour to win the hearts of the mindless?
Yours,
CBB
Posted by: David G. | November 3, 2009 10:25 AM
"it's always a male to him, I don't know why"
There's this book he reads a lot. Makes him think you have to have one before the other.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 3, 2009 10:25 AM
The authoritarian personality type is so reliant on revealed truth that it simply cannot comprehend the slow refinement of science. There is nothing but revelation, just compartments in the mind that are filed away until the right stimuli come around to pull that bit out of the box. How can you argue with that?
I agree completely. For those of you who've been suggesting, in the "I was graded!" thread, that education can allow these people to advance - I submit they are incapable.
Posted by: neutron_flux | November 3, 2009 10:31 AM
...it's always a male to him, I don't know why...
Bullshit you don't know why. It's obvious that his misogynistic, homophobic gawd prefers males and so too does Ray Comfort. Just be out with it: he certainly is.
Posted by: BeamStalk | November 3, 2009 10:31 AM
He is a thanatophobic fucktard with a persecution complex and possibly a napoleon complex. He will probably masturbate to your evisceration of him, PZ. (Envisioning Ray Comfort masturbating is what you get for making us picture Dinesh masturbating) :)
Posted by: O-Dot-O | November 3, 2009 10:35 AM
This is wonderful!
We have been given implicit permission to delete individual words from Ray Comfort quotes, in order to refute him? Cool!
This could be a gold mine!
Posted by: Ewan R | November 3, 2009 10:38 AM
I think it is obvious to anybody with the remotest understanding of evolutionary biology that if Comfort's version was the standard version then indeed nobody would buy into it.
The absolute absurdity of the idea that each species had to evolve each trait seperately (I seem to recall similar nonsense about male dogs and eyes and finding female dogs on some nonsense he spewed) from every other species shows either
a) a complete inability to understand anything
or
b) A well honed ability to understand just how stupid your target audience is
(not qutie an exhaustive list, but these are my two favorite options)
Common ancestry is such a central theme of evolution and such a spectacularly simple concept - even if you dont believe it happened the simplicity of the system is such that a pre-school child should be able to understand it.
The way Comfort phrases things one would expect him to believe that each generation has to go ahead and rediscover amongst other things - eyes, brains, teeth, hair, circulatory systems, digestive enzymes, glycolysis, etc etc - because essentially the arguement is the same, only over many generations rather than just one.
>>>
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 3, 2009 10:40 AM
The only thing worth doing with Ray is to beat him to death with his own arrogance. One blow from such a weight should easily be enough.
Eugenie Scott should have written two sentences.
"There, there now run along and play with the other 3 year olds like a good little boy and try not to eat your own shit this time. Now heres a link to some cool dinosaurs with some evolution thrown in."
The idea that she should have to waste time responding to him at all is a deep and cutting insult to her.
Posted by: Heidi | November 3, 2009 10:42 AM
Two whole paragraphs, PZ? You got further than I did. I'm not sure I finished the third sentence.
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | November 3, 2009 10:45 AM
He had a list in the "info" for the "announcement video" on the wayofthebanana YouTube channel as well as a link to the first version of his "introduction" to Origin. They were listed on a website or two as well. When the shit started hitting the fan, he rewrote the intro, begged for more money in an effort to expand the number of schools, and pulled the list of schools because it became apparent people were already debating on forums and blogs what at-the-scene-of-the-giveaway responses could be made.
I partly suspect the begging of more money was not only, or even about, expansion to other schools but rather that Ray got himself in a spot trying to cull the chapters of evidence and to save some face had to pony up more cash to do a reprint.
That's my take on it anyway.
Posted by: rawnaeris
|
November 3, 2009 10:45 AM
For fuck's sake, that man is a moron. And I find it even more depressing, I have acquaintances at my uni who would buy his bullshit. A girl in my Differential Equations class doesn't believe in evolution and wants to go to grad school for cosmology. An abridged copy of Origins could do a lot of damage, especially if the chapters are renumbered to hide the missing bits.
Posted by: kopd | November 3, 2009 10:45 AM
Personally, I'm convinced that Comfort knows better. I call him by surname as I hate sharing a given name with that quack. Anyway, I just can't get myself to believe that as many times as he has had the correct concepts explained to him, he still believes scientists think what he claims they do. I think it's all part of a carefully crafted scheme to get rich, and it seems to be working. He knows he's got biology all wrong, but his target market is that dumb. "A fool and his money are soon parted." He is preying off of fools by making them feel smarter than educated professionals in their own field. "Can you believe these Darwinists believe this nonsense? Send me more money so I can keep fighting them." It sounds brilliant to me. If I had no morals, I'd probably do something similar. But then, I also believe Ann Coulter is a Poe, so I guess I just have a tendency to believe that most extremists are fakers.
Posted by: Alessa Mendes | November 3, 2009 10:47 AM
We have a lot to learn from the Paris Hilton's and Lindsey Lohan's of the world that show us that the media loves radical ideas, controversial topics, and loonies.
I'm in the process of readng SKEPTIC magazine, where James Randi says, "Publishers adore what we call "woo-woo" books, because they know they can sell several printings of them, public taste being what it is. As soon as a would-be author shows up in an editor's doorway and outlines a ridiculous, impossible, illogical idea, you can almost hear the trees begin to fall in nearby forests in preparation for the paper that will be wasted - again - on yet another silly book."
Comfort is a WOO-WOO
Posted by: Flea | November 3, 2009 10:47 AM
Raytard is the perfect example of the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.
Posted by: kopd | November 3, 2009 10:47 AM
I see that cm beat me to it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 3, 2009 10:50 AM
Because of this
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 3, 2009 11:00 AM
USnews shouldn't give him space for such lies, but then they shouldn't give, say, Stephen Meyer space for his lies, either.
But at least Ray brings on the stupid so that all except the most retarded should notice that he's a dishonest liar. With Meyer, you have to know some of the specifics to recognize that he's lying about science and scientists.
So on the whole, I prefer that the more obvious lying tard is presented, rather than the less obvious lying tard.
Glen D
http;//tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Katkinkate | November 3, 2009 11:02 AM
Suspicion mode on/ I know it would be a huge job, but someone should check his 'edition' against the original to make sure he hasn't slipped anything in or deleted inconvenient bits smaller than whole chapters. If he (and his backers) are planning to hand out that many copies, his edition could become easier for students to access than the original and it could be an attempt to sow false information on Darwin's thesis by stealth. /Suspicion mode off
Posted by: phil l | November 3, 2009 11:06 AM
Read to the end of Ray's article (if you can stomach it), and you will find this glorious gem; "The irony is that I can see them [the flaws in evolutionary theory], and I'm not an expert on the subject of evolution".
This stunning admission of ignorance is supposed to help affirm his position? If you don't know what you're talking about, why is anyone supposed to take you seriously Ray?
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | November 3, 2009 11:06 AM
This is second hand but I believe it to be accurate as of Sept 16th. IIRC these 50 schools were the Origin-al target
1. Princeton University (NJ)
2. Harvard University (MA)
3. Yale University (CT)
4. Stanford University (CA)
5. University of Pennsylvania (PA)
6. California Institute of Technology (CA)
7. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MA)
8. Duke University (NC)
9. Columbia University (NY)
10. University of Chicago (IL)
11. Dartmouth College (NH)
12. Washington University in St. Louis (MO)
13. Cornell University (NY)
14. Brown University (RI)
15. Northwestern University (IL)
16. Johns Hopkins University (MD)
17. Rice University (TX)
18. Emory University (GA)
19. Vanderbilt University (TN)
20. Notre Dame (IN)
21. University of California – Berkeley (CA)
22. Carnegie Mellon University (PA)
23. University of Virginia (VA)
24. Georgetown University (DC)
25. University of California—Los Angeles (CA)
26. University of Michigan—Ann Arbor (MI)
27. University of Southern California (CA)
28. University of North Carolina—Chapel Hill (NC)
29. Tufts University (MA)
30. Wake Forest University (NC)
31. Lehigh University (PA)
32. Brandeis University (MA)
33. College of William and Mary (VA)
34. New York University (NY)
35. University of Rochester (NY)
36. Georgia Institute of Technology (GA)
37. Boston College (MA)
38. University of Wisconsin—Madison (WI)
39. University of California—San Diego (CA)
40. University of Illinois—Urbana – Champaign (IL)
41. Case Western Reserve University (OH)
42. University of Washington (WA)
43. University of California—Davis (CA)
44. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (NY)
45. University of Texas—Austin (TX)
46. University of California—Santa Barbara (CA)
47. University of California—Irvine (CA)
48. Penn State University—University Park (PA)
49. University of Florida (FL)
50. Syracuse University (NY)
Posted by: Julian | November 3, 2009 11:15 AM
I doubt its ignorance so much as willful blindness. His purpose is to hold the concept of evolution up to mockery; in effect, to disprove it through argumentum ad absurdum. What better way to paint evolution as absurd than to insist that species arise, whole-cloth, as individuals, so different from the parent species that they are unable to interbreed? The point of the argument is its absurdity, and that's why he keeps using it no matter how much you correct him. To you, it is a matter of biology, to him one of rhetoric.
Posted by: Ashley Moore | November 3, 2009 11:17 AM
If I honestly thought I would be tortured for all eternity for simply accepting a scientific theory, I may well do everything I can to avoid understanding the theory too.
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | November 3, 2009 11:18 AM
It should be noted as well that Ray has so wisely chosen to reprint the *first* edition as I have heard it. I have not confirmed that for myself but it makes sense.
I mean, it's not like Ray would want to print ... say ... the fifth or sixth editions as they have additional evidences added as well as rebuttals to the criticisms that followed the first edition.
Nope, can't be having truth or intellectual honestly on the loose, that's dangerous !
I know you're watching Ray, so FUCK YOU.
Posted by: Mike Wagner
|
November 3, 2009 11:19 AM
I have the feeling that Comfort is a very smart man who goes to bed on a pile of money every night.
I've never seen the man frustrated. He maintains a very cool demeanor while spouting complete and utter foolishness to his opponents. They *do* get frustrated, and he can present it as people getting angry because he's just kicked their ass with biblical logic.
And he could be talking about invisible penguins that push the continents around and carve new species out of lard - as long as he says it's all proof of God and Jesus, and says it in a reassuring voice there are people who will hand over money to him without a second thought.
Some of them are just going to be your typical religious suckers. But I would imagine some of his funding comes from people who also make their money fooling congregations and bleeding them dry.
I would be very curious to see the financial statements for his little business. I imagine the explanation of how smart he really is lies there.
I wouldn't be surprised if history regards him as the PT Barnum of the 21st Century.
Posted by: Bostonian | November 3, 2009 11:20 AM
I just can't hate Ray Comfort no matter how willful his ignorance and no matter how much he tries to pretend he's never heard the counterarguments of real scientists. Certainly I'm as astonished as PZ that US News would publish his letter with a straight face, but (shrug) what of Ray? He was raving loon last week, and he'll still be one next week.
I find the Dinesh D'Souza book PZ blogged about yesterday to be a lot more insidious and worrying. It should be clear from his books and articles that D'Souza is trying real hard to be a Genuine, Thinking Intellectual with Very Important Things to Say ... yet when he trots out his worn non-arguments and wishful thinking and tries desperately to convince the reader they represent some sort of QED on the afterlife question, it's a really embarrassing spectacle to behold. Seriously, someone needs to send him the link to the list of logical fallacies on Wikipedia and give him a half hour to review it before he writes anything else.
But Comfort? He's doing what everyone expects him to do, sort of like Carrot Top or Gilbert Godfried, or that guy with the Time Cube theory. There's really no fixing people like that.
Posted by: rrt | November 3, 2009 11:21 AM
I have to agree with some others here: I think Ray knows his male/female thing is wrong. And did anyone notice he trotted out a similar idea for species in general? That they all developed over millions of years toward "maturity" AS partially-formed versions of the species they are today, in parallel?
Watching his comments and responses to critics carefully, including the many rounds of the male/female fiasco, I am left with the suspicion that Ray is in an early Dan Barker-like scenario. He may still believe in god, but I suspect he doesn't buy most of what he's saying--but he either doesn't know what else to do, or is afraid admitting the truth would damage others' faith, or is just a cynical, hypocritical, greedy SOB who isn't gonna kill the golden goose. Or some version of all three. I don't think Ray's smart, but I do think he knows he's lying.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 3, 2009 11:30 AM
Actually, a lot of us prefer the first edition. I think he waffled a bit in subsequent editions, and not all of the added explanation was of better quality -- some of it was clearly thrown in to appease a public uncomfortable with an uncompromising Darwinian universe.
And the first edition didn't have any reference to a creator in the final paragraph.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 3, 2009 11:36 AM
OOOOOOO. Do you know which campus and when? Do you have a link to a schedule?
I would LOVE to debate Ray Comfort on the street and to pick up a copy and rip out the introduction right at the start and/or go through it step by step next to him and explain where it's wrong.
I'd be sure to get that on video too. That would bring me joy to no end.
Posted by: Orakio | November 3, 2009 11:38 AM
@#32
With the warning that I am not an expert: The authoritarian personality can, actually, be educated. It is not a simple thing, however. The primary driver of the authoritarian personality is fear – simply pounding on the doorway just makes them power up the shields of illogic. One must be placed voluntarily in an environment where he is only able to thrive through cooperation, and where he is forced to step through his own logic without echo-chamber support. Comfort has his echo-chamber and his external threat, his mental defenses would make the NCC-1701-D jealous.
On the other hand, tertiary education seems to work, assuming it's not a Bob Jones style school.
A lay primer on the authoritarian personality. Not sure how accepted it is these days, but, it’s a start by the guy who has written the most papers on this.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 3, 2009 11:44 AM
The Boston Skeptics can coordinate to intercept the Bananamobile at MIT, Harvard, Tufts, Boston College and maybe even Brandeis, if we get more solid information on when it's coming our way.
Posted by: kopd | November 3, 2009 11:48 AM
If these new editions from Raytard are actually complete, I'd like to see a website set up where poor college students who manage to obtain multiple copies of this book can sell their extras (because I'd highly recommend they keep one for themselves, after ripping out the forward) to the rest of us at a reasonable price. We could look at it as being Raytard's way of providing meals (or booze) for students. If he's got all this money that needs spending, we may as well find ways to benefit from it. Ah, here's another idea. If somebody who is not a broke college student gets their hands on a few copies, they could sell them and donate the money to a secular charity, or some cause that would be sure to irk Raytard.
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | November 3, 2009 11:48 AM
.Ah, thank you for the insight. I admit to not having read it and would like to correct that deficiency given the time. (for the peanut gallery I know is lurking ... I have read the KJV)
Aww... you went and put a cherry on top. Thanks PZ. I need to get myself out of rant mode but I can't help it when it comes to Ray. I don't often get to see my previously agnostic sister these last few years, however a few months ago the subject of religion came up, she started pitching the painter\painting routine. I'll leave it at that.
Posted by: Charles | November 3, 2009 11:57 AM
I have confidence Eugenie Scott can squish Ray Comfort. This is US News, not WND or Fox, so the readers are typically capable of neural activity.
Posted by: Reynold | November 3, 2009 11:59 AM
Ray, asking the same bloody question that's been answered on his own blog several effing times already!
Scott quoted a famous geneticist, who said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." I would like to drop one word, so that the quote is true. It should read, "Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution." For example, evolution has no explanation as to why and how around 1.4 million species of animals evolved as male and female. No one even goes near explaining how and why each species managed to reproduce (during the millions of years the female was supposedly evolving to maturity) without the right reproductive machinery.
I can't believe this! And this is the jackass who wrote a book titled "You Can Lead An Atheist to Evidence But You Can't Make Him Think"!
What in hell is wrong with these evangelical bullshit artists??
Posted by: Rob H | November 3, 2009 12:00 PM
Oh my, Ray has really outsillied himself.
The Grande Galerie de L'Evolution is a space within the Natural History Museum in Paris. You can download the floor plan ("TÉLÉCHARGEZ LE PLAN") and it's obvious that the entire 3rd floor ("niveau 3") is given over to showing and explaining evidence of evolution:* (yellow) History: Buffon, Lamarck... Darwin... from the idea of transformism(?) to the idea of evolution.
* (orange) Reproduction: what genetics brings to the theory of evolution.
* (red) Selection: how natural selection can influence the genetic structure of species.
* (purple) Reconstructing history: using paeleontology, molecular biology and comparative anatomy to reconstruct the history of life.
* (blue) What's new? Some recent results from genetics and molecular biology, key steps to understanding evolutionary mechanisms.
* (green) The traces of life: some examples of the dynamic history of life; appearance, extinction, the conquest of the land by plants and animals.
But Ray and his camera crew "couldn't find the evolution exhibit"?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 3, 2009 12:06 PM
Ray claims he saw what was described as the exhibit but he didn't see it "exhibiting" evolution.
Just more of Ray's "Fossils, I don't see no stinking fossils. Show me transitional fossils!" technique that he employs after being hit over the head with Tiktaalik.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely
|
November 3, 2009 12:06 PM
There's no comparison between PT Barnum and Comfort!
Barnum used hoaxes to attract crowds to his enterprises, but he always gave value once they were hooked. He was a philanthropist, a public advocate against racism, and a debunker of fraudulant spiritualists. Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._T._Barnum
or in Irving Wallace's biography the Fabulous Showman
BTW Barnum never said "There's a sucker born every minute".
Comfort appears to believe it.
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | November 3, 2009 12:17 PM
No, I don't think campus details were published anywhere. He did originally have a date specifically set in November which has now been withdrawn to "November of 2009"
Posted by: Kevin | November 3, 2009 12:19 PM
If the man has a thick enough skin to allow people to call him stupid then he gets to laugh all the way to the bank.
The people who make Twinkies™ know perfectly well that they are crap food but sell them anyway. Ray Comfort knows he's selling crap science and so do the media that market it for him. A swindled buck buys just as much as an earned one.
Posted by: arrakis
|
November 3, 2009 12:22 PM
Ray Comfort makes my head hurt.
Posted by: Amiable Dorsai | November 3, 2009 12:23 PM
No, no, no, Ray. It's the females who evolved first. While they were waiting for the males to catch up, they used bananas, which are perfectly designed for...
Posted by: JimNorth | November 3, 2009 12:32 PM
It's too bad the United States doesn't have any laws against false advertising...
(http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/false-advertising/)
Posted by: Les Lane | November 3, 2009 12:37 PM
To paraphrase:
"Nothing in biology makes sense in light of Ray Comfort"
Posted by: Humanistic Jones
|
November 3, 2009 12:47 PM
Amiable Dorsa @ 70
/thread
Here's that internet you just won.
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 3, 2009 12:53 PM
This is the money quote right here -- the basis for Comfort's appeal, and the reason why he doesn't give a shit about trying to actually understand the scientific theory he's critiquing. There are no difficult concepts. It's all graspable through "common sense." He's playing up the idea of the Playpen Universe -- a simple, easy-to-understand environment which was put together by a Parent for His children.
If evolution doesn't make sense on first glance to the ordinary guy, then it doesn't make sense to anyone. The experts are only considered experts because they got the fancy-pants degree. They don't know more than you or I. In fact, if we know that the universe is a Playpen Universe, and they don't, then we know more. The little guy is wiser than the wise, who are fools in comparison.
There are people who eat this crap up. Expertise = opinion. Trust your gut instincts. Trust your heart. Trust God. That's so humble of you, it will make you feel tickled.
Of course Genie Scott should address this so-called 'rebuttal.' It's a virtual gold-mine of boners. If Ray Comfort did not exist, we would have to invent him.
Wouldn't it be funny if Ray's big-pocket backer was an atheist, who insisted on the full edition, and knew that Comfort is the worst person in the world to use in promoting creationism to college students? I wouldn't be too surprised. Surprised, maybe, but not that surprised.
Posted by: Zippy the Pinhead | November 3, 2009 12:56 PM
"no species of elephant ever had to re-evolve sex"
They figured it out by watching cows.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 3, 2009 1:06 PM
Genie responds:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/11/03/scientist-genie-scotts-last-word-to-creationist-ray-comfort-there-you-go-again.html
Good enough, though one could hardly answer his many retarded claims regarding evolution adequately in the space allowed.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: cag
|
November 3, 2009 1:22 PM
I suspect that the sale of glue sticks may spike at the locations where the Comfort handouts occur.
Posted by: chgo_liz | November 3, 2009 1:22 PM
Darvolution @ #67:
From your link, I clicked on "events" which took me to a calendar listing all the events, speaking engagements, etc.
Apparently there's a one day conference this weekend. That's it for November.
Busy guy, huh?
Posted by: qbsmd | November 3, 2009 1:25 PM
I've suggested before that creationists who want to debate should be required, as a prerequisite, to take and pass an intro level biology class, and publicly post their assignments from that class. This would ensure that they at least understand what they are arguing against. It would also be much harder for them to regress to arguments they previously used, because their test answers could easily be thrown back in their faces with the phrase "we have proof you know better than that".
Posted by: chgo_liz | November 3, 2009 1:29 PM
Clarification:
Darvolution simply gave the link; it was about Comfort, not himself.
The calendar listed Comfort's and Cameron's supposed speaking engagements.
I didn't mean to sound like I was maligning Darvolution. Sorry about that!
(The way I think in my head doesn't translate well into quickly typed posts.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 3, 2009 1:29 PM
They're deleting comments now. They deleted this one. I left.
---------------
And what's another impressive fact about Tiktaalik roseae fossil is that Shubin et al used the predictive power of the evolutionary theory to point to where a fossil such as this would be found. And guess what, that is where they found it. They used their existing knowledge about fish and tetrapods and figured out what time frame the transition most likely occurred. Being that most of the earth has been geologically mapped they looked for areas with rocks that fit that time frame (Middle Devonian 380-363 Ma) and of the correct type ( freshwater river deposits) and that pointed them to the Canadian Arctic and Ellesmere Island, Nunavut.
Guess what they found there? Tiktaalik roseae, A transitional fossil fitting neatly where they expected to fit. Between fish and tetrapods. Exhibiting traits of both.
They predicted they would find this very fossil where they did because of our understanding of the evolutionary process combined with a number of other real science fields. Real, actual, working science. The exact thing that Ray Comfort says doesn't work.
Creationism doesn't predict anything beyond the believer's gullibility.
Ray is either a willfully ignorant moron, a liar, a scam artist or what is most likely a nice blend of all of the above.
Posted by: Blaidd_Drwg | November 3, 2009 1:38 PM
The problem isn't that he hasn't had things explained to him, or even that he doesn't understand them. The problem is, he KNOWS the majority of the public doesn't know the explanation, doesn't know how full of bovine excrement he is, and is willing to take his word for things, because, after all, Science is soooo HARD and they simply cannot, or will not put forth the minimal effort it would actually take to LEARN the facts.
As someone once said: Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. - Mark Twain? PT Barnum? Pat Robbertson?
Posted by: Endor | November 3, 2009 1:45 PM
she responded:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/11/03/scientist-genie-scotts-last-word-to-creationist-ray-comfort-there-you-go-again.html
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 3, 2009 1:49 PM
What's funny is that would actually end his embarassment and gain him a lot of respect from the scientific community.
Posted by: thoughtspiral
|
November 3, 2009 1:59 PM
As the good Reverend BigDumbChimp points out, US News is moderating the comments with a rather heavy hand. I've been watching them do this all morning, and I notice they almost invariably delete posts with explicit evidence for evolution (like Tiktaalik) or those incontestably revealing Comfort as a first-order liar. (I watched at least a dozen comments go up pointing to the exact same lies PZ showcases in the post above, each to disappear again after a few minutes.)
I also notice they tend to ignore comments that help to frame this as an issue of Christianity versus atheism, and generally delete comments that point out neither Catholicism nor most mainstream branches of Protestantism take issue with evolution.
It seems US News is trying to be as "fair and balanced" as another well-known news agency...
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 3, 2009 2:04 PM
Thank you, Endor, for the news.
I had to laugh at the very first comment after Eugenie Scott's essay. It ends this way.
Take that, all you believers who also accept the fact of evolution.
Posted by: cylusys
|
November 3, 2009 2:11 PM
The reason this happens so much is because impartiality has become confused with neutrality. An impartial journalist would call a crackpot a crackpot, a neutral journo on the other hand is not allowed to make a decision one way or the other despite any amount of evidence. That is why any story, say about climate change for example, will ALWAYS finish up with comments from deniers or opposing views, for 'impartial balance' when it is in fact insidious neutrality. Members of the news media fear accusations of 'bias' (the farce engulfing Simon Singh should also give you a good idea of what happens when courts inevitably get involved), even when the truth is that they are just following the real facts. Through this lens it becomes all the more clearer why the general populace seems to think there is controversy where there is none, because kooks and liars have to be given equal time.Posted by: Christophe Thill | November 3, 2009 2:15 PM
I vote for incapable. The notion of species evolving as speculation goes against the deep Platonician leaning of all our Western culture. "Populational thinking", as opposed to "types", is not a natural notion to most of us (as Gould said). It's difficult for many intelligent people. It's even difficult to quite a few with a scientific education.
So it's no surprise that Ray Comfort, who is dumb as a box of rocks and know nothing whatsoever about science, doesn"t get it.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
November 3, 2009 2:27 PM
It makes perfect sense. I'm a blond (ish - not so much anymore) and I can't possibly go on to procreate with a ginger.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 3, 2009 2:35 PM
To me it's obvious: Comfort actually believes in species.
He believes that species are separate entities, like pebbles. And he hasn't even grasped that pebbles can break apart.
He doesn't get that the limits between "species" are arbitrary lines drawn through a continuum.
Either that, or comment 28 is right.
In marsupials and placentals anyway.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 3, 2009 2:49 PM
Pebbles don't grow, also.
Posted by: jugglinbob | November 3, 2009 2:49 PM
ah.. the old half an eye creeps in there - I have a diopter of -12. Without my glasses I can't recognise a face at 10 feet, although I hope that I'd still have a decent chance of seeing (and avoiding!) a truck heading towards me. It might not count as exactly half an eye, but has to be less than 100% by any way of measuring. So - less than 100% of an eye is still useful...
Posted by: Susan Robinson | November 3, 2009 2:51 PM
Could use some help with comments on this intelligent design letter to the editor in my local newspaper......
http://www.modbee.com/opinion/letters/story/917967.html
Posted by: stptrck75
|
November 3, 2009 2:53 PM
Mr. Comfort, please take a basic biology course at a community college. Take basic chemistry, and then organic chemistry. Take an astronomy course.
What do you have to lose?
Posted by: blf | November 3, 2009 3:10 PM
I rather do hope the folks at my alma mater give this nutcase a reception in classic Caltech prank style; one he'll remember and which everyone else will laugh at. Perhaps involving bananas? (costumes? giant inflatable floating balloons?)? Free copies of The Authorized Ook! Version of the babble, complete with a lingering banana smell?
Posted by: cameronsnipples | November 3, 2009 3:13 PM
"females are the default (primary) sex and that males can't exist first"
Well, there is still no known photographic evidence that Kirk has nipples just as Comfort has no known brain activity - make your own conclusions....
Posted by: areBerry | November 3, 2009 3:16 PM
According to Kirk & Ray's introductory video explaining why they find knowledge so threatening one of their contributors is revealed. This is a link to the Alliance Defense Fund http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/main/default.aspx They provide legal support & assistance to all kinds of wacky causes like protecting the persecuted christians on college campuses across the country. Something like reprinting a book of science by a man who can't even comprehend the basic of mammal reproduction sounds right up their alley.
Posted by: Kraid
|
November 3, 2009 3:34 PM
A couple of quotes come to mind when pondering Ray Comfort the con-man vs. Ray Comfort the blithering idiot:
"A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." - attributed (with some uncertainty) to H.L. Mencken
vs.
“Never put down to evil intent what can equally well be explained by thoughtlessness.” - H.M. Rothman
Anyway, I'm currently siding with those who say Comfort is actually a con man, and one who is nowhere near as stupid as we like to say he is. Yes he sounds stupid to us, but that's only because we're not buying the con. We laugh at him and dismiss him as a wackaloon, meanwhile he's bilking ignorant and gullible people out of thousands and thousands of dollars in his "righteous" fight against godless evolutionists.
There's a third quote that sorta combines the two above, by Mark Twain I think... but my Google skills are failing hard, so sorry if I mangle it. It goes something along the lines of, "I can't tell whether the world is being run by clever people who are putting us on, or by idiots who are laboring in earnest."
Posted by: darkl1ght3r | November 3, 2009 3:45 PM
Ray is either stupid or evil. I just can't figure out which. I don't understand how someone with the necessary mental capacity to feed himself (I'm assuming he can do that... I could be wrong.) can't comprehend the errors in his argument after repeatedly having them explained to him.
He quotes Scott as saying, "There are more specimens of 'Ardi' (the newly described Ardipithecus ramidus) than there are of Tyrannosaurus . . . We and modern chimpanzees shared a common ancestor millions of years ago . . . ."
Scott clearly states that we SHARE common ancestry with chimps. Ray then proceeds to show his (low) level of reading comprehension by stating the following:
"Did you hear what they said? This idea that we evolved from ancient chimplike creatures is totally and completely wrong."
Ray, in his typical braindead fashion, is arguing against the wrong point. He thought she said that we evolved FROM chimplike creatures. Scott only made the point that we SHARE a common ancestor with modern chimpanzees, NOT that we evolved from them or creatures like them.
Posted by: blf | November 3, 2009 3:47 PM
The quote is apparently by Twain and seems to be:
(According to http://thinkexist.com/quotation/sometimes_i_wonder_whether_the_world_is_being_run/337813.html as found by Generalissimo Google™.)
Posted by: gadfly47
|
November 3, 2009 3:56 PM
Right on, Rik G. To paraphrase Bill Maher: You don't have to report both sides when one side is bat-guano crazy.
Posted by: Itspiningforthefjords
|
November 3, 2009 4:23 PM
"Come on, US News, a little self-awareness and responsibility would be a welcome change."
That is FUNNY stuff!
Posted by: Caustic Gnostic | November 3, 2009 4:27 PM
@Blaidd_Drwg(#82), that would be Mencken.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 3, 2009 4:31 PM
Actually, I rather appreciate U.S. News publishing this back and forth. I think that it rather exposes his ignorance on the subject, and allows Genie Scott to point out the flaws in his argument.
I especially appreciate this, because I have several relatives that are creationists, and I'm hoping to point this "debate" out to them so that they'll have a chance to listen to which side is more reasonable
Posted by: Dorkman | November 3, 2009 4:31 PM
So as usual, Ray's argument is "Nuh uh!"
Posted by: Crewvy
|
November 3, 2009 4:39 PM
I guess its a testament to the freedom of speech that Ray Comfort can exercise his right to be deliberately obtuse and is not carted off to bounce around in his own personal rubber room.
Posted by: Doug | November 3, 2009 4:59 PM
Surely the question of elephants acquiring two sexes is even easier than them having evolved from pre-elephants. The first elephant would be so similar to pre-elephants that it would not know it was the first elephant, and would be able to continue mating with pre-elephants. Only when elephants had mated with other elephants and changed enough that they became unable to mate successfully with pre-elephants would they be a new species.
Posted by: apoLOLgetics | November 3, 2009 5:23 PM
For Ray:
Hello.
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me.
Is there anyone home?
Posted by: Darth Dog | November 3, 2009 5:49 PM
Some people even claim that French and other Romance languages evolved from Latin. That's clearly ridiculous. Who would the first person who spoke French have had to talk to?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 3, 2009 6:18 PM
They're still deleting my comments. Even ones where I refrained from addressing the idiots by name.
Zero respect for that column. Dan Gilgoff should be ashamed.
Posted by: Nobody | November 3, 2009 6:26 PM
At least now he's publishing the complete book, with only the inevitable strategic "printing errors". I still think the safest thing to do is to save the introduction for comedy value and chuck the rest into the bonfires.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
November 3, 2009 7:00 PM
So I discovered on one of the comments threads over there that some creationists refer to macroevolution and microevolution as "the general theory of evolution" and "the special theory of evolution" respectively. Anyone else ever come across this bit of inanity?
Posted by: Copernicus | November 3, 2009 7:13 PM
O-DOT-O #35
Comfort was certainly on to something when he said: "Biology makes sense in the light of evolution. For example, around 1.4 million species of animals evolved as male and female. Nothing we have is half evolved. The cow has a working udder to make drinkable milk. The bee has working apparatus to make edible honey. We don't find a half-evolved cow or bee. None of the 1.4 million species on the Earth has half an eye. All have the necessary functioning equipment, from the brain, to the teeth, to the eye, to limbs, to reproductive necessities. Everything that we see is in full working order—from the sun, to the mixture of the air, to the seasons, to fruit trees and vegetables, to the animal kingdom—from the tiny ant right up to the massive elephant- we see it displayed in the fossil record- Darwin was certainly on to something. Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy, heavy-handed evangelism- there are so many gaps and holes in the Bible"
Posted by: AHMaslow | November 3, 2009 7:25 PM
nice one Copernicus!
Posted by: Geoffrey of Ballard
|
November 3, 2009 7:49 PM
@Wes #7 Books can be printed very cheaply in bulk, especially with just black text on the interior. I wouldn't be surprised if 170,000 copies could be printed for under US$200,000.
Posted by: Ellie | November 3, 2009 9:30 PM
On reading Comfort's rebuttal: *facepalm* - repeat ad infinitum.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
November 3, 2009 9:50 PM
I would like Ray Comfort to explain why god made so many other animals male and female and made them want to hump eachother too. (And why did god make dogs want to hump human legs?) Why do humans usually only have two nipples? Why do some have supernumerary nipples? Why do the males even have nipples?
Raytard has no answer for the question about why there are male and female genders in many species. As for mode of reproduction - we are aware of two large classes of reproduction - sexual and asexual - and many different specific modes within those classes. Why is there sexual reproduction? Well, things just happened that way. Evilutionists have even shown the variation and different adaptations in reproductive organs through numerous contemporary species - strangely enough it is all the more evidence for a common descent rather than for a wishy-washy god who decided on different genitalia just for the laughs.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
November 3, 2009 10:18 PM
@99 darkl1ght3r
I took a look at the Discovery channel's web site and found 6 clips of the episode that Comfort quote-mined. Yes, it was a wonderfully grotesque example of quote-mining.
The biologist interviewed explained clearly (to me anyway) that the discovery of Ardipithecus pushes back the common ancestor of chimps and humans to an earlier more "pre-chimp" form. In other words, the Chimp has evolved quite a bit from the common ancestor. The 20th century (biased) perception that we mighty humans "left the Chimps behind," in a manner of speaking, has proven false.
The fourth clip of this set of 6 has the explanation in question. Quite a bit different in context than what Comfort "quoted" : Ardipithecus and human evolution
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
November 3, 2009 10:44 PM
re. myself @ (#112)
My creationist nemesis has informed me that the special and general theories of evolution (as terms) were invented (well, he says "treated") by some biologist called Gerald Kerkut in his book The Implications of Evolution published in 1960. According to this site Kerkut was contesting the idea that phyla could evolve using the same mechanisms as species, though. In fact, Kerkut's pretty explicit that the "special" theory (which creationists interpret as "microevolution") covers evolution of species. (That link seems to be a decent little article on quotemining, but I didn't read the full thing.)
Posted by: FuriousGeorge | November 4, 2009 12:12 AM
"Nothing we have in creation is half evolved...We don't find a half-evolved cow or bee."
I rarely lol in the literal sense of the abbreviation as I read stuff on the 'net. But this was a real lol.
Really this looks like Stephen Colbert's material. It's hard for me not to imagine his voice behind it.
Posted by: brasidas | November 4, 2009 3:48 AM
Comfort doesn't seem to get how the quote from Jeremiah applies to him. If you pushed his face up against a fossil of Tiktalik all he would see would be a fish with legs or an amphibian that looks a bit fishy specially created by his invisible friend.
He'd still ask where they were hiding the real transitional fossil with half a head, two half eyes, 4 half legs, half a tail, half a body, two half gills and. like Comfort himself, half a brain.
Posted by: ZenMonkey | November 4, 2009 5:12 AM
I didn't even go so far as to read the response. Ray Comfort just plain isn't worth it. I wrote about how I plan to handle "news" about him from now on:
http://newly-nerfed.net/2009/11/02/dont-feed-the-troll/
Posted by: Polyester Mather DD | November 4, 2009 5:24 AM
Estne facilius, Darth Canis ?
Si lingua latina femina est, et lang D'Oc masculinus; ergo primum homininibus loquans lingua Franca hermaphroditum est.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 4, 2009 5:39 AM
Ray has a nopology up on his blog about it. Seems the 20 to 1 slagging off he got stung him a little.
Posted by: Martin | November 4, 2009 8:06 AM
Anyone else read this claim that Comfort's intro is plagiarized? http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2009/11/ray-comfort-plagiarist.html
Posted by: Richrd Eis | November 4, 2009 9:08 AM
-Anyone else read this claim that Comfort's intro is plagiarized? -
The first 2 are a bit weak, but the 3rd is plagiarized definitely. Of course he may have permission but I doubt it. This is not the first time i''ve seen this. Then again i'd rather he got in trouble for being a liar than a thief.
Posted by: Coryat
|
November 4, 2009 11:23 AM
To be fair, no scientist has ever explained who removed a rib from all the male animals to create the female animals.
He definitely plagiarised as well.
I'm starting to think he might be a performance artist; every facet of his character just makes me think 'lol wut?', even down to the fact that he's called Ray Comfort although he cheerfully daubs everything with his shit like an insane monkey.
What is the difference between a duck?
One of its legs is both Ray comfort.
Posted by: Dan Warren | November 4, 2009 12:33 PM
Well this is about as surprising as the ocean being wet; Comfort is a man who makes a good living lying about science.
Posted by: magistramorous | November 4, 2009 1:45 PM
@ darvolution proponentsist: Where did you get the list? As I've posted before, I'd like to combat this problem in the San Diego area with flyers and booklets. I want to be reasonably sure that UCSD is one of the targets, if possible.
Posted by: magistramorous | November 4, 2009 1:55 PM
@ darvolution proponentsist: never mind, you already told us where you found the list. sorry
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist
|
November 5, 2009 2:30 AM
chgo_liz ...
I read it just like you meant it. No worries. ;-)
Posted by: Carlie | November 5, 2009 8:54 AM
"Nothing we have in creation is half evolved...We don't find a half-evolved cow or bee."
Obviously, he doesn't know about Eric.