Kirk Cameron accepts dishonesty

Not that the point needs to be reiterated. If you haven't heard of Way of the Master already, then you're really missing out on an opportunity to watch a scientifically ignorant duo consisting of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron take on the world of evangelizing through dishonesty; however, since you are reading this blog I am going to assume that you do indeed know who they are.

A while back, they debated an atheist group (known as the Rational Response Squad) on television. Although I am not much of a fan of the Rationalist Response Squad, few are reluctant to say that Kirk and Ray put up much of a fight (this sentence almost seems like a non sequitur, but I don't care). As many people may know already, Ray Comfort is not exactly the most honest creationist in town. He has been corrected many times on his blog about the misconceptions he's had related to science and evolution (one glance at any of his comments sections is evidence for that). He also eggs people on, in my opinion, through insults (both subtle and not). For example, here is his blog post for today.

As we can see, Comfort is one classy fellow.

What's worse is the video he links to, which shows a clip of Kirk Cameron talking about "missing links" in the fossil records (this was at the event mentioned above).

Science has never found a genuine transitional form that is one kind of animal crossing over into another kind, either living or in the fossil record. And there are suppose to be billions of them.

This is also where we get the first taste of the "crocoduck" argument against evolution; as you can see, Ray and Kirk are not exactly the most intelligent people when it comes to science. Or evolution. Or transitional fossils.

In watching the video, you witness something even more distressing... somebody actually buys it.

Believing in magic...and then some.

After reading a post by the Secular Thinker, I repaid a visit to Ray Comfort’s blog to see what tripe he came out with today.

This is what I get-

A simple-minded man once maintained that the story of Pinocchio was true. A wooden doll did become a human being. He not only believed that it was true, but he maintained and that he had evidence to back it up. He said that its proof was that there was such a thing as a wooden doll of the type spoken of in the story, and that it has been also proven that there was once a child that looked like that doll. Therefore, in his mind, that was evidence that the wooden doll came to life. He didn’t see the disconnect between the two thoughts.

Then he said that his theory was scientific, he was intelligent, and anyone who didn’t believe as he believed was unintelligent and unscientific. Yet everyone knew that non-life cannot become life.

Ray Comfort brings up this story of a mystery man believing something on anecdotal evidence, who claims it is scientific (and by the way, claiming something scientific does not make it so). Why would Ray tell us this story? The hint is in the final sentence. A nickel if you guess what he’s going to write about next…

Such describes the modern atheist. He has an adamant belief that there’s no evidence that there are any gods, and yet he himself is part of life. He believes that non-life produced life, and he doesn’t see the disconnect. Then he tries to justify his belief by embracing the wild speculation of Darwinian evolution, the theory that he believes is "not complete but is more compelling than believing in magic."

While I certainly wouldn’t state that all atheists have an adamant belief that there’s absolutely no evidence that there are any gods (and God with a capital “g” too Ray, your God isn’t any exception), I would ask that if he does, so what? The only thing you should be able to do before you criticize this atheist is demonstrate that there is evidence for a god claim. And if you make a God claim, and fail to demonstrate how it is true, then anybody is justified in disbelieving your claim and stating there is no evidence (that we know of) for it.

Ray then goes on to say that the atheist believes life came from non-life. You see, Ray Comfort is a man who offers his readers nothing but gross characterizations, false dichotomies, and straw men fallacies. The fact that we may admit not knowing how the universe originally began automatically makes Ray assume we mean nothing came from something. That’s untrue. Also, because we do not know how the universe originally began automatically makes Ray assume that God must’ve done it. He still fails to demonstrate how this is true, not realizing that when you posit a positive belief you should have evidence to back the assertion up lest you be condemned to false beliefs. Then, like is custom for Ray, he ties the theory of evolution into his post (no surprise there).

I have practiced magic for many years, and have watched the astounded expressions of thousands of people whose eyes where easily fooled by my hands. Prestidigitation has taught me that human beings are extremely gullible, and never has there been such mass gullibility as with the case of those whose believe the theory of evolution without compelling evidence. For them, a bump on a whale-bone becomes positive proof that whales had legs, or some amino acid means that chickens were once dinosaurs. Obscure non-transitional fossils become attestation that humans are actually primates. This is the conviction of the simple-minded, who believe anything that paleontologists and professors pontificate.

I agree, people who accept the theory of evolution without looking at the evidence are gullible- fortunately, most rational people I know have indeed analyzed the evidence. Ray Comfort may understand that his statements are either gross mischaracterizations or flat out lies, but he either does not know or care. If he does not know, he should do some more research on his part and read the comments on his own blog to gain a better understanding; if he indeed does not care, however, then he is intellectually dishonest. His last sentence, besides being mildly insulting, is highly ironic. Ray Comfort is a man who will believe anything in that canon of 66 books written long ago. Do the claims in these books have to be substantiated? No. That’s good enough for Ray.

No doubt the argument will continue until Kingdom come between those that love God, and those that don’t. But I have looked at the "evidence" for evolution, and I don’t believe as they do. I am not afraid of their "starter information" because their "finish" doesn't exist.

Ray offers up a false dichotomy: Either you accept evolution and hate god, or you love God and reject evolution. Not everybody who accepts the theory of evolution is an atheist. There are many Christians who accept the evolution (Kenneth Miller, for starters).

I choose rather the evidence that is backed up by the power of the Creator, who promises to reveal Himself to those that obey Him (see John 14:21). There is no greater evidence for truth. When God reveals himself to any human being, the argument is over.

Ray Comfort, there is greater evidence than that for truth- any evidence at all.

________________________________________________________

On a side note, I decided to turn on word verification for the time being- these spam attacks became worse than I thought. I hope you don't mind.

Creation Museum Trip

Since I could not go to yesterday's creation museum trip, I've decided to write a post about a news article about the trip. I'm doing my part to fight against weak "science", no matter how minor it may be. However, just in case you didn't know, PZ Myers (along with the Secular Student Alliance) decided to pay the creation museum (the one owned by Ken Ham) a visit. There was an incident in which one student, Derek, was removed from the premises. Although, the allegations seemed weak.

The article begins:

A group of scientists, students and secularists -- 304 in all -- visited Petersburg, Kentucky on Friday to tour exhibits on display at the Creation Museum.
The visitors are in town attending a conference of the Secular Student Alliance, a group formed "to organize, unite, educate and serve students and student communities that promote the ideals of scientific and critical inquiry, democracy, secularism, and human based ethics."

Exhibits in the Creation Museum, which cost $27 million to build and opened in May, 2007, present a history of the world based on literal interpretations of the Book of Genesis. Adam and Eve share the Garden of Eden with dinosaurs; the beaks of Darwin's finches are explained by God's will, not evolution; and mankind spread from continent to continent by walking across the floating trunks of trees knocked down during the Biblical Flood. The museum has made a specific effort to reach out to students and families.

$27 Million wasted on anti-science tripe. Apparently, dinosaurs were all vegetarians (even the dinosaurs with the sharp teeth) before the fall of man. Re-read where I added my bold emphasis- now, it is alright to ridicule at the explanation these people give for how people crossed the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean. However, you have to give it to them for the ability to fabricate an excuse for anything.

William Watkin, a chemist living in Indiana, challenged one exhibit's suggestion that the Grand Canyon could have been carved in hours by a process similar to how volcanic mudslides can rapidly create canyons in softer rocks. "Everything they said about sediment deposition, about Mount St. Helens … anyone in first year geology would say 'wrong from top to bottom,'" said Watkin.

Anybody with even a basic understanding of science will understand these people are wrong from the top to the bottom. The problem is, these people aren't as interested in having their science correct as much as they are interested in spreading their gospel message. Here is a snapshot of their mission statement.

As you can see, these people first lay the foundations of their "research" with what the bible states (or at least, their interpretation). Then anything that does not fit their worldview gets thrown out. Sound science is what a real museum strives for- these people are a sham.

In the singular moment of noticeable conflict, Derek Rogers, a computer science major at Dalhouise University in Nova Scotia, Canada, was detained by guards for wearing a shirt with a slogan recently plastered on buses by activist groups that read "there's probably no God, so get over it." He was escorted to the bathroom and ordered to flip the shirt inside-out.
"One family of religious people told me that I had ruined their trip, and they drove all the way from Virginia," said Rogers.

A museum that orders somebody with a shirt that isn't very offensive (though this is my opinion, it did not have any explicit language or imagery) surely is not open to the exchange of ideas. This is truly disheartening, we'd expect a place that sets forth to "educate" to tolerate an opposing view. PZ Myers, famed biologist blogger, wrote about it on his blog (there is even video footage of the conversation between Derek, Myers, and a couple of other atheists). What I found amusing was that a family from Virginia stated this ruined their trip. I'm sure their trip would have been worse were they to have been thrown out. What these people should be worried about is the distasteful attitude this museum has towards any form of minor criticism.

But at least one conversation between religious believers and members of the group found common ground. Beneath a poster that presented the creationist interpretation of fossils, two students from North Carolina and a man who became religious after being diagnosed with cancer engaged in a polite dialogue about helping others and tolerating differences that drew a crowd.

"Regardless of religion, we both live our lives for the same reasons," said one of the students. "The big thing we have a problem with here is the faulty science."

This is the ending paragraph in the article. And I agree that my first quirk against these fundamentalist types isn't their religiosity, it's their misunderstanding of basic science (and promotion of pseudoscience).