I decided to dig a little deeper on Ray Comfort. What a nutjob. It is infuriating. I have decided to post his reasoning as to why he published his version of The Origin of Species. I have also decided to comment. Normally, I never do that because the information speaks for itself, but this is really something special. Here it is.
Why I Published a New Origin
By Ray Comfort
"When I discovered that the famous On the Origin of Species was public domain, I decided to publish it myself and write an Introduction and give away copies of the book to university students, in honor of the book's 150th year of publication." (Why not, we all have a right to do that? Never mind the people who have spent years studying it to become experts... Qualifications are irrelevant.)
"But when Kirk Cameron (my TV cohost on The Way of the Master) and I produced a short video clip explaining what I wanted to do and posted it online, we kicked a hornet's nest. A big one."
"Why are many atheists so angry? Why are they talking about book burnings, threatening to resist the giveaway and rip out the Introduction, etc.?" (Actually, I am an atheist, and I would never dream of a book burning. In fact, I have posted articles here that talk about the churches doing this. Even drivel like this has a right to be out there. If I was not researching for a book, I would never give this man the time of day. Its called a sense of personal responsibility. Some of us are fully capable of thinking for ourselves)
"Why was richarddawkins.net encouraging people to collect copies and rip out the Introduction? Professor Dawkins himself said that even though "a lot of people seem to be very worried about this," he wasn't at all worried."(What possible threat could this man ever have to PROFESSOR Dawkins?)"
"Why did he then tell Toronto university students to tear out the Introduction? There have been more than 140 different editions of On the Origin of Species, many with special Introductions, so what's the big deal with this one?" (Its drivel, that is why) "If I am (as Professor Dawkins says) "an ignorant fool," why are so many feeling threatened by what I've written? Surely, the Introduction will be ignorance and foolishness, and simply"" confirm the students' presuppositions that intelligent design isn't worthy of even a first look. (That is right, so why would you pollute one of our most honored scientists with your ignorance and foolishness? Introductions are used by publishers to introduce scholars to new ideas and perspectives that have developed in the field of study. This man, surely does not have a PhD)
"There's a reason that they are deeply concerned. The Introduction quotes Charles Darwin saying that blacks are closer to gorillas than whites and that natural selection has left men more intelligent than women. It also has quotes from Adolf Hitler'sMein Kampf showing Hitler's undeniable links to evolution. Of course, Hitler also used Christianity to further his political agenda, but my point is that Nazi Germany was the natural outcome of what Darwin called "one general law." Darwin said the law of natural selection is "Let the strongest live and the weakest die" (Chapter Seven, "Instinct"). Adolf Hitler put the theory of Darwinism into practice." (I am so glad that I have an education and I am able to see through this crap. What he is discussing is Eugenics, which was an offshoot of Social Darwinism. Darwin was long dead when his cousin applied his scientific theories to human beings. Here is a link to an article from BMJ that properly explains what its origins and the main ideas of this theory. Somehow, Mr. Comfort has managed to evade that this is an interpretation of this idea, much that same as the Bible was "similarily misapplied" with the Witch Hunts of Europe, the lynchings of the KKK, or the colonization of third world countries. Also, during the time of the Holocaust, only a few small Protestant churches in Europe publicly indicated that they did not agree with the Holocaust. The majority of the Christian churches ignored what was happening. Here is the link-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127045/)
"The Introduction also defines an atheist as someone who believes that nothing created everything—which is a scientific impossibility. Professor Dawkins believes that nothing created everything, and his belief is a big intellectual embarrassment to his followers." (I am by no means embarrassed by this. In fact, the exact quote goes a little like this, and it is a quote that I am quite proud of and find quite beautiful and compelling- "The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice." Dawkins has never made claims that he knows what generated the construction of the universe. However, he has explicitly stated that he knows it is no God. No credible scientist would, they understand that the generation of information is an ongoing process, and that we learn over time. That is why science is the discipline of inquiry. It is static. Mr. Comfort should speak for noone but himself. Oh yeah, the real and dictionary definition of an atheist goes a little something like this- a⋅the⋅ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. At least he was cognizant enough to state that that was the way that the Introduction defined it)
"Now, anyone can get their own copy of the book on Amazon.com and read the Introduction, but don't be fooled by the comments. No doubt they will be hijacked by atheists. When my book You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence But You Can't Make Him Thinkbumped Richard Dawkins's The God Delusionon Amazon.com in the atheist category, hundreds of angry atheists left scathing comments on Amazon.com and gave my book the lowest rating." (Unfortunately, I cannot seem to get any information to properly refute this. Not that I think that it is not out there, just that my searches are not good enough. However, Amazon recently confused the real Origin of Species with Mr. Comfort's version and people were outraged. No wonder- here is the link.http://richarddawkins.net/article,4479,Amazoncom-Confuses-the-Ray-Comfort-Version-of-Origin-of-Species-and-the-real-one,itsmaxinthebox---YouTube)
"So, is this book going to be a backward step for science, as some have maintained? Of course not. Science is a wonderful discipline, to which we are deeply indebted." (Here is an experiment to Mr. Comfort, and he will see how indebted he really is. The next time that he gets an infection, I would dare him to pray for the cure for 7 days and see what happens without taking Antibiotics. Our use of AB's are a result of the hard work of evolutionary biologists. He would never do that though, for that I am sure that he knows better.)
"It will, however, be a backward step for the pseudo science of Darwinian evolution, of which there is no empirical proof." (Here is a definition of Empirical Proof- "dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. Empirical data is data that is produced by experiment or observation." So, the fossil record is not empirical proof? Or, the study of genomes and understanding how heredity contributes to evolution?)
"There are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record. None. I deal with hundreds of atheists every day through my blog, so I can predict the response: "Of course there are fossils! There are millions of fossils, you unscientific idiot!!" They are right. There are millions of fossils, but they are the fossils of God's creation and have nothing to do with evolution.Again, there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record. That's what is called "the missing link." It was missing in Darwin's day, and it's still missing today. When believers in evolution protest that there are links between "kinds," a close look at their evidence reveals small bumps on whale bones (proving it once had legs), or experiments with bacteria, or conjecture that modern turkeys were once dinosaurs. Sure."(Really? There are multiple examples of transitional species- here is a link. And, more interestingly enough, modern evolutionary biology is beginning to fully support the idea that transitional species may have been misapplied term. The study of the genome is teaching us that transitions occur slowly through generations by mutations. It is not so clear cut and "quick" as was once conceived. In fact, this finding is linked to Professor Jonathan Montgomery, who is a part of the Human Genetics Commision. He teaches at the University of Southhampton. He said this;
"The fact is, all living things are transitional. We just don't know what they'll be in the future. All modern animals are only another snapshot. It's just that we happen to be around right now, and we think that because we're here to see it, we must somehow be special.
We're only another link in the chain of life, but what an epic journey that is. This is a strange and wonderful world, and it's astounding to consider that we're a product of it. Embracing our heritage does not rob us of anything. It gives us knowledge, insight, and the power to take control of our future."
The transitions occur slowly over time, changing with each generation produced. Hopefully, the term "missing link" will be out of vogue too with the establishment of more data within the Human Genome Project.http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm)
"The problem when arguing with those who believe in atheistic evolution is that they move goal posts by redefining atheism orevolution or the wordspecies. From Darwin to Dawkins, they speak the language of speculation, continually using words like probably, maybe, perhaps, and could've. And Darwinism is as nebulous as a puffy cloud on a hot windy day, forever moving, changing, and expanding—because its bounds are limited only by the fertile human imagination."(That is why it is called inquiry. With new information, we learn new things. It is an ongoing process)
"When we give away On the Origin of Species to university students, I want every one of them to make sure they don't stop at the Introduction. I want them to thoroughly read On the Origin of Species. When I read the book, I was very impressed with the brilliance of Charles Darwin. If he was alive today, I am sure that he would quickly rise to the top of Disney's imagineers or earn big bucks as a Hollywood screenwriter for science-fiction movies." (WTF!!!!!! What is an imagineer? Yes, of course, cause today anyone with brains works for Hollywood writing sci fi or being a great imagineer)
"Among other things, Darwin noted that black bears swam for hours with their mouths open, catching insects in the water. He believed that if they kept their mouths open all day, every day (for a long period of time), that they would acquire "larger and larger mouths, until a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale" (Chapter Six, "Difficulties on Theory"). (Yeah.... And the Bible also says that Jonah lived in the belly of a whale. At least Darwin's idea is a logical continuum of what he was working on. Albeit a primal one, but I could see where he was going with it. What a great imagineer Darwin was!)
"Students can read Darwin's own explanation as to why there is no empirical evidence for his theory—that all "intermediate varieties" have disappeared—just like the Mormons' golden plates that the angel Moroni supposedly gave to Joseph Smith.There's one big difference, though, between the golden plates and the intermediate varieties. The Mormons say that only two golden plates are missing. Darwin says that millions of fossils (what he referred to as "innumerable," ibid.) are missing. After 150 years of desperate searching, the missing links are still—missing." (Just goes to show- the Golden Plates has a claim that 11 people have seen them. And, millions of people believe this. Crazy. Missing Link, again look back to genetics, and the development of slow transition over time).
"In Darwin's book, nothing is as God created it. Instead, all of creation miraculously evolved—from the bear's mouth to the giraffe's tail. For some reason, it has all reached the point of maturity during our lifetime and (after millions of years of redundancy) now functions as it was intended. Move over, J. R. R. Tolkien, Arthur C. Clarke, and J. K. Rowling. These three combined don't hold a candle to Charles Darwin. Most of their fans know that their writings were fantasy. Darwin's faithful followers don't.(Whatever, at this point I really could not care anymore. The man is insane and ignorant.At least the above mentioned had good entertainment value. This man's delusions are dangerous.)
No comments:
Post a Comment