On the matters of faiths, beliefs, sciences and worldviews.

Ray Comfort is at it again. After a short period of trying to act serious and humble, he’s right back to insulting the intellects of atheists everywhere, while still claiming that he has good reason to believe what he believes.

Let’s dissect his statement:

I also love science.

No, he doesn’t. He probably doesn’t even know what the word means.

In case you didn’t know, “science” is God allowing man to discover the secret workings of His incredible creation.

As usual, simply assuming that the world is created is more than enough evidence to prove that it is. Ray Comfort loves science, but doesn’t understand the first thing about it.

Einstein (a theist who didn’t believe in a personal God) rightly said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

Ah, here we go with Einstein again. You would think a Christian would show some respect for the dead, but not our dear Ray. Einstein was not a theist, at the very most he was a deist, but even that is up for discussion since he hints at having a definition of a god that isn’t really a god at all. It’s more of a term simply to describe the wonders of the world itself, and not an intelligent force, whether personal or not. I’ve quoted him before, but I’ll do it again:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Back to Ray.

But [atheist scientists] also intellectually disqualify themselves from speaking on behalf of science, because their basic worldview of “nothing created everything” is a scientific impossibility.

He holds on to his most beloved strawman as it he’d die without it. Metaphorically speaking, he probably would. Without his delusion that atheism somehow implies any stance on creation whatsoever, he would wither up and crumble. It’s his only weapon, and all it does is irritate and annoy. Regardless, if he maintains that it’s true that atheists believe “nothing created everything“, then it’s equally true that all Christians firmly believe that “nothing created God“. However, as soon as you mention that, Ray and his followers will start screaming that “God has always existed, he’s outside time” as if that answers all the questions. But, if believing that our universe didn’t have a creator is “intellectually dishonest”, why is it reasonable to believe that God didn’t have a creator as well? I’ve never understood this, nor have I ever gotten an honest answer out of any Christians whom I’ve asked.

Einstein said, “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” If you also want to know God’s thoughts, read your Bible.

This, of course, right after Ray himself said that the god of Einstein wasn’t the personal, theistic God of Abrahamic religion. Ray doesn’t care if his logic is flawed. In fact, he flaunts his errors in order to troll for more insulted atheists to hang around his honey pot blog.

You love creation. I love the Creator and will escape His terrible swift sword, because I trust in His mercy.

I have no feelings whatsoever towards the creation of the universe. Why would I? It’s an impersonal event billions of years in the past. How do you have feelings towards a giant cosmic expansion-event?

It’s my earnest prayer that you would also trust Jesus for your own eternal salvation today. He doesn’t promise you tomorrow.

He doesn’t promise anything, because he isn’t real.

Sometimes you hear about all the scientists who supposedly don’t agree with what the theory of evolution suggests, and you think “hmm… If there are plenty of really smart people who doubt evolution, maybe I should too?” Sure, why not? I mean, we trust these people with everything else, so when they doubt something, they probably have really good reason to.

Enter “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism“, a petition signed by over 700 scientists who disagree with the popular position that the theory of evolution by natural selection is the best, or even the only possible, theory. Wow, that sounds serious. Over a period of several years, scientists from all over the world have expressed their opinion on evolution, “a theory in crisis” ((“Evolution: A Theory In Crisis” by Michael Denton)). Now, what are the rest of us going to think, those of us who trust that scientists do support evolution?

Well, there’s always “A Scientific Support for Darwinism“, a counter-petition signed by 7733 scientists in only four days, as opposed to the 700 dissenters over a period of several years. Or, if you like a challenge, “Project Steve“. Project Steve lists only those who support evolution and are named Steve, Stephanie or any foreign variation of the name. Even with those limits, they have 1080 signatories as of March 26th, 2009.

Not content with that, there’s also the fact that both the supporter petition and the Steve project contain a higher ratio of biologists than the creationist counter-part. Of course, everyone is allowed their opinion. However, if you want to present your opinion as fact, you better be sure you know what you’re talking about.

So the next time someone tells you that there’s great controversy regarding the theory of evolution, or that there are many scientists who don’t agree with Darwin’s original theory, be skeptical. Be skeptical of those who try to refute science with religion. Be skeptical of those who don’t draw conclusions from evidence, but seek evidence in support of the conclusions. Be skeptical of those who claim to be skeptical, but really aren’t.

To end things, I don’t suggest that we accept the theory of evolution simply because a majority say so, but the numbers are there to interpret anyway: 700 dissenters, of which many aren’t even active in fields relevant to evolution, versus 955,300 biologists in the United States alone ((A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism: Expertise relevance)), who presumably all support the theory of evolution.

So I just finished watching Ben Stein’s horrible documentary on Intelligent Design, “Expelled: No Intelligent Allowed“, and about how there’s a big conspiracy in the scientific society to suppress any and all mentions of ideas that challenge the theory of evolution. I spent most of the 90 minutes yawning, and shaking my head at the TV, but here are a few things that I wanted to highlight for those who’ve watched this film and think it’s important.

Unarguably the most important criticism of this film is the fact that it contains no facts. The entire 90 minutes consist of Stein (or someone else) interviewing people who feel they’ve been wronged by science, and are left without jobs or, in some cases, without the possibility of ever even getting a new job in their field. Sure, there’s a valid point in investigating the circumstances of these people’s claims to have been ostracized from science in general, I’ll admit that much. But does Stein even do that? No, of course not. The few cases he even felt the need to investigate were done sloppily so, and without any depth or reasoning whatsoever. He’s content with the assumption that these people lost their jobs because of their opinions.

The validity of the hypothesis of Intelligent Design, then. Does Stein actually bother to find out if it really is what proponents claim it is? No, not that either. He assumes, throughout the entire film, that the mere fact that the idea of Intelligent Design exists means it is on equal ground to the theory of evolution in any debate over the two. He disregards the scientific scrutiny either due to gross ignorance in the subject, or malicious intent.

For 90 minutes, the people he interviews talk about holes in the theory of evolution, gaps in many fields of science, great controversy and all kinds of disturbing notions. Disturbing, had they been true, that is, and which is something that he doesn’t bother at all to verify. When asking about one certain idea of how life might have evolved from non-life, he dismisses the answer simply because he doesn’t understand it. Admittedly, the interviewee didn’t exactly make himself very clear, but doesn’t that just mean that Stein should have sought a more detailed explanation elsewhere? Of course, he didn’t.

Near the end, he interviewed Richard Dawkins and asked some pretty much non-essential questions that had nothing to do with anything else in his film, and had some very telling reactions to his answers. At 1hr and 31 minutes he seems baffled at the idea that Dawkins rejects all possible gods (by contrast, Dawkins is also equally baffled at the reaction to his answer). The problem here is one that is central to those who call themselves ignosticists rather than atheists or agnostics, and that is that it is meaningless to discuss the existence of a term you’ve not yet clearly defined the meaning of. In the same interview, Dawkins tries to explain the possibility of Intelligent Design by creator that itself is a product of natural evolution, and it is doubtless this that confuses Stein. He goes so far as to express his confusion in a voice-over during the interview clip. What he probably doesn’t understand is Dawkins’ definition of God in scientific terms, as applied to the context of Intelligent Design. The idea of an intelligent designer is plausible even within evolution if that designer itself was a product of evolution. However, science can not, and will not, ever allow the idea that the designer is “magic” and came out of nowhere. This is not a fault in science, but rather it is the very point of science.

Overall, the film left me rather irritated. The intent of the film was to show that the freedom to express ideas and have them taken seriously is under attack. What he didn’t mention, however, is that Intelligent Design is an idea that has only ever been expressed, but never scientifically verified by either side. Surely Stein isn’t proposing that we assign equal scientific value to any idea proposed, no matter how ridiculous? Of course not, he only proposes this when it comes to the thinly disguised version of Creationism, a religious and non-scientific movement, that is renamed and rebranded as Intelligent Design. Even early on in the film, Stein wants to assign credibility to ID’s secular validity by stating how many theistic religions there are that accept it and back it up. Surely, finding a single atheist to support ID would have been more constructive, but I also suspect that it would have been much, much harder.

By all means, watch this film if you want to. Just keep your mind alert while you do, and I guarantee that you won’t miss the glaring holes, gaps and fallacies in the arguments that he presents, nor the suspiciously missing facts to support the very claim of validity for Intelligent Design that he’s repeatedly making through the 90 minutes of it.