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

Ray Comfort, after having debated the subject for years and years, going head-to-head with plenty of educated professionals, as well as passionate amateurs, has now clearly and unambiguously defined his… interpretation of the evidence for the theory of evolution. Check this out:

His problem (referring to a comment regarding the “mountain of evidence for evolution”) is that he has never taken a close look at the mountain, and believes that he has a mammoth case with his long list. His “etc.” means that he believes there are even more mountains, somewhere.

Maybe that works for the simple folk, but it doesn’t work for those who know that his evolutionary fossil “record” doesn’t exist. Of course fossils exist, but not as a record for evolution.

So, neither the person who wrote the comment Ray replies to, nor any of the worlds biologists, geologists, chemists, physicists or otherwise scientists, have ever taken a close look at the figurative “mountain” of evidence. Ray has, apparently. He has gone where no person has gone before, and concluded that it’s all smoke and mirrors, no substance to it at all. He declares, without hesitation, that the fossils that exist in no way whatsoever show any kind of historical record of species adapting and changing over time. I’ve always found it interesting why God placed so much emphasis on “kinds”, yet still needed to specially create every single form that could possibly be seen as an intermediate species… Only to kill them off and leave their bones in the ground for us to find. Why did they exist in the first place, if they weren’t good enough to take on the Ark?

Ray continues,

I don’t have time to run down the long list of winding rabbit trails, other than to say that DNA is an incredibly complex “language”, and to say that it’s proof for evolution, rather than of intelligent design, is to confirm Psalm 14:1.

No, of course he doesn’t have the time. After going through every single scientific field related to evolution, and personally studying every last piece of evidence in favor of it, there wouldn’t be much time left over to publish the results, now would it? I mean, he’s only human…

Only Ray could make the argument that it’s more important to study the external appearance of DNA, than to actually find out how it works, what it’s for and what evidence it makes up. It’s almost as if he actually believes that every biochemist out there makes the explicit argument that simply because it looks complex, that in itself is evidence of evolution.

In conclusion, Ray proves yet again how if his understanding of evolution was compared to a baseball game, he’d be the equivalent of the hot dog vendor in the stands.

Also, you are not a primate, nor are you a relative of fish, pig, or the dog. You are a human being, created by God (with an intuitive knowledge of right and wrong), and therefore you are morally responsible to Him for your thoughts, words, and deeds…whether you believe it or not.

Ray seems to think that “primate” and “human being” are mutually exclusive terms. Surprising, considering his vast expertise in biology. You’d think someone who has a complete and in-depth understanding of all the evidence in existence for the theory of evolution, would also know the most basic terminology used to describe said evidence… I guess not.

Lastly, he touches on an interesting point. So many times have I had it explained that God is like a loving, caring parent, and we are his children. Now, with that in mind, those with parents who actively punish you for thinking the wrong thoughts, put your hands up. Yes, right now. I’ll wait. No one? Really? What about those who think “thought crime” should be acceptable, as well as punishable as a capital offense? Yes, I’m talking lifetime in prison, plus Guantanamo-style torture… only it’s not for life, but for eternity. No hands for that either? Shocking!

But apparently the act of creating human beings (as opposed to primates) is so incredibly exhausting and mentally straining for an omnipotent First Cause-type being that we should spend our entire existence trying to make up for the fact that we exist. It’s almost as if God was lonely, so he created something that would amuse him, and that he could treat as badly as he wanted, only to guilt-trip into obedience every time it started to have its own opinion on things.

Ray Comfort isn’t fun anymore. It’s why there hasn’t been very much activity as of late. Ray isn’t even trying, neither is anyone else in the Creationism/Intelligent Design community. All the small, ambiguous scientific finds that could be made in favor of some kind of “purpose”-driven interpretation have been made, and debunked several times over. The only resort to these people is a fantasy world, a universe in which a street preacher has as much authority studying fossil records and DNA as paleontologists and biochemists do. A universe where evidence that has convinced the most stubborn scientists for over a century and a half is “obviously non-existent”. A universe in which “something from nothing” is a ridiculous suggestion, but “something from God, who came from nothing” is perfectly acceptable, and indeed, preferable. I suspect future updates will be scarce as well, unless something amazing happens, and at least one of the members of the league of extraordinary ignorami changes their tone, or even their arguments. Until then, it’s just beating a horse that’s been dead for decades…

Doctor Eugenie C. Scott writes the following, in a debate with Ray Comfort:

I close with another quote. Todd C. Wood is a young-earth creationist—indeed, the director of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College, founded in honor of the creationist hero William Jennings Bryan—who rejects evolution for biblical reasons, just like Comfort. Wood insists, “The Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution.”

But unlike Comfort, Wood is a trained scientist. And as such, he recognizes that the scientific basis of evolution is strong:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

Anyone who honestly examines the data supporting evolution—even a young-earth creationist—concludes that the science is strong. If you reject evolution, you are doing it for religious reasons. You’re entitled to your religious opinions—but not to your own scientific facts.

Raoul Rheits, over on Ray Comfort’s blog, opened my eyes to the term “Rayvolution” as a way to describe the fallacious straw man version of the Theory of Evolution that Ray, and those like him, like to knock down for effect. I thought it’d go perfectly with my recurring segment of popular “Rayologies“, so I’ve decided to create that as a category as well. Whenever Ray makes a particularly stupid or hilariously ignorant example of Rayvolution, I’ll deal with it right here.

To begin with, let’s take today’s post: “Evolution is exactly like the story of Pinocchio!”

Yes, because we all know the Theory of Evolution proposes that you must believe in wooden replicas of species magically coming to life, giving birth to mutated wooden replicas that in turn magically come to life as well. See? Not evolution, but Rayvolution.

I don’t blame him, really. I totally get it. It’s much easier to just boast and claim that you’ve knocked down that really big, tough bouncer at the bar, instead of actually showing everyone how you did it. Likewise, it’s much easier to disprove Rayvolution than it is to disprove evolution.

Via Uncommon Descent, I get to a blog called “Darwin’s God: How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters“. Here, Dr. Cornelius Hunter argues that evolutionists live in constant denial about the religious nature of the theory of evolution. “The metaphysics embedded in their thought is exceeded only by their denial of it. It is a truly fascinating mythology” he writes.

Ok, so the fact that Dr. Hunter would make this argument is somewhat spoiled for us right in the very title of the site. It is also not a very new argument, ID/creationism proponents have been claiming this for years. But why do they think so? What is it about evolution that makes it seem like it is religious in nature?

The reason given by evolutionists such as Myers for why their theological proclamations don’t count is that “evolution provides an explanation for” the imperfections.

It’s true, evolution does provide an explanation for the imperfections in nature. Dr. Hunter quotes (his emphasis) PZ Myers as writing

the interesting part about imperfections like the recurrent laryngeal nerve or the spine of bipeds or mammalian testicles isn’t simply that they seem clumsy and broken in a way no sensible god would tolerate, but that evolution provides an explanation for why they are so.

Not only does the theory of evolution predict beforehand what kind of evidence we should expect to find – and do find – but it also fits the evidence we already have found of common descent with modification. However, this isn’t enough for Dr. Hunter, because it doesn’t fit his worldview. They theory of evolution is incorrect not because it isn’t supported by evidence, but because it is incompatible with his pre-existent opinion of what the evidence is supposed to be.

Third, the notion that “evolution provides an explanation” is absurd. That’s like saying bed-time stories provide an explanation.

The only one’s who are religious in their methodology and conclusions are the creationists and the IDists, because they are the only ones to have reached their conclusions before seeing the evidence. This is shown by their continued insistence to try and prove their case to all of science as well as dismissing all the evidence that doesn’t fit their own ideas, while the real scientists study the evidence, form their theories and then spend a lot of their time trying to disprove their own conclusions. This is the base of the peer review system where you submit your theories not so that others can praise you for how right you are, but so that they can tell you precisely why you’re wrong. Naturally, not being interested in being proven wrong, creationists and IDists mostly reject this system, preferring to pat each other’s backs when one of them finds some perceived flaw in some small part of the theory of evolution.

Dr. Hunter’s problem, I believe, is that he himself is probably religious, and he therefor can’t conceive of a person coming to conclusions that aren’t grounded firmly in religious dogma and beliefs. Because he already believes one thing to be true, he must automatically reject everything else, regardless of the evidence in favor of it. The easiest excuse for someone like that is, of course, to deny one’s own problem and instead pin it on the other person. This is why he makes the illogical and unreasonable accusation that we are the one’s who are religious, and that he is one who’s simply following the evidence.

I just wonder how it is that a theory that is completely false and untrue can continue to produce cures for diseases, better crops and live stock and be supported by so many and so large bodies of evidence, while a theory like Intelligent Design, that is so obviously true, can consistently fail to produce anything at all, least of all evidence in favor of itself. No wonder then that they have to resort to vast conspiracy theories to explain away their own failures.

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.