Did you pass out Ray Comfort’s reissued Origin of the Species?

If so, I’m sure you made up your mind well before researching critiques. But seriously, do you have any idea how deceitful and fallacious Comfort’s introduction is?

It’s really sickening that so many Christians uncritically accept any criticism of evolution as valid simply by virtue of the fact that it’s a criticism of evolution. Even a cursory amount of research will show how many egregious misrepresentations of Darwin and evolutionary theory are in this introduction. And Comfort cut out two chapters that are widely recognized to contribute some of the best evidence for Darwin’s thesis.

If we will be known by our fruit, and especially if you want to entice others to eat it, I’d be much more careful that straw men and outright lies aren’t charged to your account if I were you.

Above all, I’m dreadfully disappointed that a group of people so committed to believing all the right things would so actively propagandize falsehoods and mischaracterizations without fact-checking them.

How much stock do you put in actors’ political opinions? Unless he were trained as a surgeon, I’ll warrant that you wouldn’t let a preacher operate on you, no matter how much you respect his theology and pastoral sensitivity. If you’re going to criticize evolution, do so on scientific grounds, why don’t you?

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • PrintFriendly
  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Why are so many Christian scientists evolutionists? As a followup on my reason number two from Why the debate over creationism matters, wherein I state a couple sources underlying this question, I’d...
  2. My crackpot detector’s about to explode .!. Three unmistakeable signs of someone no one has any business taking even half-seriously: 1) They imply or state outright that the beginning of...
  3. Chance and diminishing domains During the course of his interview with Ben Stein that I mentioned in an earlier post, R. C. Sproul recounted the story of his conversation...
  4. Lamoureux: links and labels Mike Beidler over at The Creation of an Evolutionist has a post up with a link to an overall excellent interview with the brilliant Denis...
  5. DeMar Tickles Creationists’ Ears In a recent article on his website, Gary DeMar tries to pick a fight with a strawman to encourage his anti-evolutionist choir. This has bothered...

View Comments Posted by Steve on Sunday, November 22, 2009 at 12:17 am.

Filed under Evolution/origins, Science, , , , .

  • Doug Moody
    I want to comment on two things.
    First, I have personally witnessed adaptation of species. When I lived in California, I had a large and beautiful saltwater fish tank. Being that I had no access to tropical sea anemones, I decided to go to the nearby cold water tide pools and take out a few anemones for my tropical tank.
    I successfully transplanted the cold water anemones to my warm water tank, and t he anemones thrived. The only thing that happened was that they lost their color, due in large part to their food source changing. This phenomenon is found in pink flamingos too. A flamingo is only pink because it eats pink food!
    Anyway, I decided to see if this adaptation could be carried further. So, I went to the local pet store and bought a few clown fish. These fish had never seen these types of anemones, and the anemones had never encountered a clown fish. But guess what? In a relatively short period, the clown fish accommodated themselves to the anemones and vice versa. They both began acting like they belonged where they now found themselves!
    This was a great experiment for me, as it proved that species do indeed adapt to their environments without causing them to die in the process.
    Secondly, I wanted to comment on "transitional forms" Perhaps this whole discussion that seeks to REQUIRE that a transitional form exist to prove or disprove evolution is asking the wrong question.
    One has only to look at the extreme variety in life on our planet to see that "transitions" are right under our very noses. Take a look at today's news on foxnews.com or msnbc.com to get a look at some pictures of the newly discovered thousands of deep-sea creatures. Looking at these, is it not hard to see elements of other creatures existing within them? For example, the one they call "Dumbo" has "flying ears" But it actually looks like some kind of modified squid, and with only a little fiddling, would indeed be a full-fledged squid.
    So, insisting that there be transitional forms is nothing more than a smokescreen that takes our view off the real issue. Namely, that transitional forms are not necessary to show some kind of "missing link" A missing link isn't even the proper question.
    My opinion is that the sheer variety of ALL forms of life proves a common design. I believe that common design came from God, who "programmed" life onto this earth. It is similar to (though this is a poor example at best) computer programs that can adapt to changing conditions and write their own new code. If such things exist in the human realm, why is it such a stretch to think it couldn't happen in the God realm?
  • No.
    Keeping my own powder dry is of sufficient distraction
    without involvement in solving proselytizing misfires,
    let alone triaging the friendly fire faithful.

    Steve,

    Have you been recording or watching the PBS Nova special series " Becoming Human"?
    .-= Windpressor´s last blog ..On Biblical Rorschach & Pre-Noah Flood Story =-.
  • I saw the video promoting this a while back and was disgusted. Mostly by what a waste of time all of it was.
    .-= Travis Jacobs´s last blog ..God’s Gift of Hope =-.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe without commenting