Posted on 05/10/2006 9:38:22 PM PDT by Tim Long
Author Ray Comfort says TV satirist too insecure to accept offer
A Christian author and TV host whose latest book, "Intelligent Design Versus Evolution: Letters to an Atheist," debunks Darwinism has challenged fellow television personality Bill Maher to a public debate on the origins of the Earth.
Says Ray Comfort: "Mr. Maher, like all believers in the theory of evolution, simply has a blind faith in a theory-tale that can't be substantiated. It's just another opiate of the masses – a religion called 'Darwinism' that piously robes itself in what it thinks is 'science.' It is true science fiction."
Comfort hosts "The Way of the Master" with actor Kirk Cameron.
"I am beginning to suspect that some men may have evolved from chickens, or at least that's the impression I get when it comes to evolutionists standing up for their convictions," notes Comfort. "Mr. Maher can choose the place of the debate. I don't mind if he has it in front of his audience. He can bill it as 'Another simple-minded Christian being thrown to the lions.'"
The former host of "Politically Incorrect," Maher now hosts "Real Time with Bill Maher" on HBO and is known to be hostile toward religious faith.
In a statement, Comfort quotes Maher as saying last year: "Evolution is supported by the entire scientific community ... the reason there is no real debate is that intelligent design isn't real science. ..."
Responds Comfort: "I can scientifically prove intelligent design. Let's have 20 minutes each. I present my case (I won't even mention 'faith') and then he can present his case for evolution. I say that he doesn't have one. He's bluffing. I don't mind if he spends his 20 minutes telling jokes, because that's all he has."
In 2001, Comfort was a platform speaker at the American Atheists' 27th National Convention. He has also spoken on the subject of intelligent design at Yale, UCLA and other institutions.
Comfort says his publication "The Atheist Test" has sold over 700,000 copies. He's the author of more than 50 books, including "God Doesn't Believe in Atheists" and "The Evidence Bible."
Referencing intelligent design, Comfort said, "Hundreds of scientific scholars and researchers throughout the world support it – including scientists with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Smithsonian Institute, with doctoral degrees in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science and related disciplines, from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, and UCLA. So Mr. Maher can't dismiss the idea as 'not scientific' just because he doesn't like that conclusion."
Added the author: "'Intelligent Design Versus Evolution' contains scores of letters written by a very intelligently designed atheist who gives evolution's best arguments. I think that's healthy. Yet pro-evolution pseudo-intellectuals are calling for censorship, by not allowing school kids the freedom to listen to both sides of the argument. That reveals their insecurity."
I think it should be impossible to have the words "intelligent" and "Bill Maher" in the same sentence.
Really? Tell me about Jesus, who's Son is He? Did He tell the truth about the scriptures? I see a conflict between salvation and the cult of evolution.
Is that Kirk Cameron sitting next to him?
*Sigh*
I'm a Christian personally, but I have to say that the entire Christian community has a tendency to be nothing but a huge self-parody.
The bananna was changed by human hands from a much different plant, as were apples, oranges, almonds, corn and all (or almost all) other domestic plants. The wild ancestor of the bananna plant had much harder and less sweet friut that was about the size of your index finger. The wild ancestor of the almond had enough cyanide in its seeds to make a grown man violently ill.
Even most domestic farm animals were changed by selective breeding over the years. If you want an example then check out the difference between a chicken breast from the 50's and today.
Short answer, that is fine.
Moreover, I don't mind when someone's faith supersedes science. I respect faith. I understand that faith trumps science. I may not agree with it, but I can respect it.
What I cannot respect is when the creationists or IDers invent their own brand of nonsense and call it science. That is neither honest nor intelligent. And like it or not, it is used against conservatives generally.
If you read a creationist web site, you can see the absolute dishonest nonsense these people come up with. c.f. Creationsit web site
THAT's the test? What a joke.
I really wouldn't call it dishonest so much as I would misguided. Most if not all creationists do sincerely believe in what they're doing or saying, even if some of it does sound a little preposterous.
The problem is that people (and most people are guilty of this, not just creationists) have a tendency to be far too sensitive when it comes to their personal beliefs. That may be understandable...but the existence of a belief that isn't one's own, or that CHALLENGES one's own, is usually viewed as some kind of threat that must be targeted.
I am a creationist and I believe the Bible; that said, I think people attribute FAR too much science to it, when it is not a scientific book at all. For example, (putting on my flame suit), the Bible never says that "THE EARTH WAS CREATED IN SIX DAYS." If you read Genesis, you may come to that conclusion, but if you STUDY Genesis, you'll find that that may not be the case.
My point is that the Bible isn't a scientific book, and if we try to attribute so much science to it, we miss the entire point of the book. It is, in short, an chronicling of the rocky relationship between God and Man. There is a LITTLE interesting science to it, but most of it is wholly concerned with something more important.
Cite please.
Why do you guys think there is such a dismissive attitude toward debating and an iron fisted approach toward allowing that debate to happen in schools too.
No one on the anti-evo side brings actual, rigorous, peer-reviewed and tested science to the table when they want to begin one of these "debates". They simply seem to retreat to their institutes every time they're defeated in the court of public opinion and slap together another half-baked "theory" with which they can suck donations from the gullible and try to back-door religion into science class.
Evolutionists are all too aware of the dangers involved in the public hearing the evidence. That is why they'd rather it didn't happen.
A conservative judge in Pennsylvania gave about as impartial a hearing as Creationists are about to get, and he came down firmly on the side of the ToE. You're right when you say that I don't want this debate to happen, though. Instead of Bill Maher, why not an Ivy League biology prof?
And that's why these guys are so abusive, snobbish and dismissive on the whole. They know they are an 'endangered species'.
I think that my side gets abusive out of frustration. How many times can you try to explain a position to a person who simply doesn't want to hear it and only listens to try to score points off of you? As for snobbish, well, we have standards and we demand that others meet them. Is it snobbish to demand a certain level of knowledge and expertise?
The Nazi war machine held to it's propaganda as did the German people even after they were defeated. Many wouldn't believe the truth even when it was shown to them. And today, Neo-Nazis go so far as to say that much of what Nazis are to blame for never happened. I don't offer that as a comparison to Nazi-ism. I Offer Nazi-ism as an example of how propaganda has a life of it's own inspite of truth. Let the whaling commense.
I think that I'll let that last paragraph stand on its own. It does a beter job of debunking your position than I could.
Well, he starred in the horrendous movie versions of the "Left Behind" series...and he does some spokesmanship for TBN and Christian Broadcasting things.
Like I said, the Christian world doesn't even need to be made fun of. That guy is probably the most famous person we can get to speak on our behalf.
All you're talking about is micro-evolution or Variation. Variation is not in dispute. And variation doesn't support Macro-Evolution. So why, one asks, is it that evolutionists ALWAYS resort to this bait and switch argument.
Answer: Simply put, if they had evidence for macro-evolution, we'd hear no end of it. But, because there is no evidence for it, we are presented with appeals to variation as though it were the other thing at work. Bananas producing bananas is offered because they can't show Bananas macro-evolving into say, breadfroot. The reason why is simple. Bananas can be breeded to express specific traits just as anything else can. But ask the breeders if there is a limit to that expression and they will tell you that there is in no uncertain terms a limit to what breeding can accomplish. I've used hog breeding as an example in the past. And it's something most of you can check out for yourselves with local breeders. I am surrounded by them in Indiana. And they love to talk as much as the farmer loves to talk about his corn, beans, etc. They may not give away all their secrets; but, they'll tell you that if they could breed hogs up to an average of 2tons apiece, they'd have long ago done it for the killing they'd make on their per unit price.
With "evolution" the truth is largely not in what they will tell you - it is in what they will not only not tell you; but resist admitting at any cost.
While one can argue about technical names for 'species' of corn, bananas, green beans, etc. At the end of the day, we know by common names what will be produced by each when we plant them. It is a law of nature. If you plant a greenbean, that seed will grow greenbeans. If you plant corn, the seed will grow corn. Need I remind you that you give birth to kids with differing hair color, different facial features, different height, weight, etc.. day in and out. Science would declare them each a different species if they were corn. That is how the game is played. In the end, they're children and it is 'corn' or bananas or green beans. Technical labels may serve as an attempt to obscure this point. But, when boiled down, they don't get away with it. Here, they will scream about the technical names and tell us how ignorant we all are of 'speciation' for expecting the 'variation' or micro-evolution example they present as proof of macro-evolution to actually prove macro-evolution. They rely on you confusing the two and staying in the confusion over the two even while they banter on about the differences.
I planted a garden this year. I'm still tilling the soil and putting the seeds in the ground - and will actually be working out there tomorrow yet again. I planted starters
for green-beans, tomato plants, carrots, green peppers, onions, etc.. pretty long list. I planted those seeds knowing exactly what they will grow and produce. Farmers have counted on it for eons. The proof is in the countless ZILLIONS of seeds planted annually across the globe in the millions and billions of acres worth. Every seed, to the last one, will produce exactly what was planted. Plant corn and you will grow corn. If evolution were true, that could not be the case. Variation offers no support to Evolution as a theory. Until you actually see corn product non-corn, you aren't dealing with evolution. You are merely dealing with pretense.
Sorry, just has to "flame" you. :)
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy." - Exodus 20:11
I would be interested to know how you do not see this as equivalent to "THE EARTH WAS CREATED IN SIX DAYS."
What's your brand of Creationism?
Like I said, the Christian world doesn't even need to be made fun of. That guy is probably the most famous person we can get to speak on our behalf.
Don't forget about Mr. T and Gary Busey. : )
Well, it depends on how you define "Earth." Does it mean the whole planet, (including the core, crust, magma, etc.) or just the planet as we know it? It includes "heavens" in there as well, which is another interesting thing to consider (what does "heavens" refer to? Just the sky? The atmosphere? Or Heaven itself?).
And the whole point of that passage is that we are supposed to rest on the Sabbath or 7th day, and devote that time to God (again, man's relationship with God). I feel the scientific analysis, while certainly interesting, misses the point.
Personally, I simply go back to Genesis 1: 1 and 2, especially verse 2.
I haven't seen any evidence of a HS education, only a biblical indoctrination.
Kinda snickering at your appeal to peer review as though it meant anything.
Tell me, how much play would Protestantism have gotten if it were to have been subject to peer review by Roman Catholicism?
How much play would Christianity get in a Muslim country if religion were subject to muslim peer review in those countries.. The answer in both cases is pretty self evident.
Proseletyzing Muslims to anyother religion is a death sentence for both parties. And Rome did it's best to peer review Protestantism out of existance using the public cookout as the review forum. For the sake of the Roman Catholics who are now offended at the truth, I suppose I'll have to drag in the sins of the 'Protestants' so they'll feel better - afterall, the Protestants did use the Catholic methodology at Salem even if the result isn't the official version we've grown accustomed to hearing. The 'everyone's a sinner' argument now placated, the obviety of the worth of the review process now stands naked and the pretense rightly defrocked. And that is the only thing of substance that I caught in a quick read.
Peer review is nothing more than a pretense of subjectivity posing as objectivity - ei extreme prejudice. And you wonder why you're losing the battle for the hearts and minds when it's so obvious.
Stephen Baldwin, Alec Baldwin's bro, converted to Christianity and decided to join the Republican party. I do applaud him for that.
Obviously there are many interpretations, but "heaven" is understood to be our atmosphere, while "heavens" is understood to be the 3 heavens. (2nd heaven: outer space, 3rd heaven: what we think of when we talk about "going to heaven").
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.