Science In The Eyes Of The Anti-darwinists

[Brother Jeff]

Science in the Eyes of the Anti-Darwinists

 

From http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/04/scie...darwinists.html:

 

Mark your calendars, because on May 5, former child star Kirk Cameron and “best-selling author Ray Comfort” are going to “prove God's existence, absolutely, scientifically, without mentioning the Bible or faith.” Cameron has, like others on the Right, blamed school shootings on the teaching of evolution:

 

ABC … will host a debate in New York City on May 5, 2007. Moderated by Martin Bashir, the debate will be streamed LIVE on their website and will also be filmed for "Nightline."

 

Cameron ("Growing Pains" sitcom and Left Behind movies) will speak on what he believes is a major catalyst for atheism: Darwinian evolution. The popular actor stated, "Evolution is unscientific. In reality, it is a blind faith that's preached with religious zeal as the gospel truth. I'm embarrassed to admit that I was once a naïve believer in the theory. The issue of intelligent design is extremely relevant at the moment. Atheism has become very popular in universities--where it's taught that we evolved from animals and that there are no moral absolutes. So we shouldn't be surprised when there are school shootings.”….

 

"Most people equate atheism with intellectualism," Comfort added, "but it's actually an intellectual embarrassment. I am amazed at how many people think that God's existence is a matter of faith. It's not, and I will prove it at the debate - once and for all. This is not a joke. I will present undeniable scientific proof that God exists.

 

If Cameron and Comfort think that evolution – the basis of much modern science – is unscientific, what kinds of “scientific” arguments are we likely to hear from them? Maybe something like this, which just happens to be the second most viewed clip on GodTube:

[Piprus]

Well, here we go again, watch for the circular argument. Why do Comfort and Cameron, Inc. think they can prove god's existence when no one else ever has? They simply cannot accept anyone discovering the flaws in their reasoning.

[Ouroboros]

God is good. Bananas are good. God is a banana. Bananas exists... so... ergo God exists... GAH! I can't argue against something so clever as that argument!

[nick5]

Guys, this is gonna be awesome. It's like, the Olympics for mental gymnastics. Get ready.

I'm telling you, this is gonna be awesome. And by awesome, I mean the funniest thing you've ever seen in your life.

[Taphophilia]

I don't think Comfort uses the banana argument anymore, since it's been heavily refuted and supports the crux of evolution, genetic mutations. Though, I'm sure that Comfort and Cameron will get the Gold medal in Chiristian's most popular Olympic sport, Jumping to Conclusions.

[quicksand]

If the banana is undeniable proof for his god's existance, then the pineapple, must be the undenaible proof against his god.

 

Jesusfuckinchrist... is that his proof? And we're supposed to listen to them and take them serious about science?

[Ouroboros]

I don't think Comfort uses the banana argument anymore, since it's been heavily refuted and supports the crux of evolution, genetic mutations. Though, I'm sure that Comfort and Cameron will get the Gold medal in Chiristian's most popular Olympic sport, Jumping to Conclusions.

Yeah. I think they removed the video from their website last year. And the banana as a bad argument wasn't that it proved evolution, but that it proved human influence and cultivation to breed a perfect fruit for easy consumption. God didn't create the banana we have in the store, but human farmers through selection and variation. The wild banana have seed, while the consumption banana is seedless and have to be planted from offshoots. So by analyzing the argument we can conclude as follows: if God created the banana, and the banana was created by man, then man is God.

 

--edit--

 

And here's the real kicker:

 

Comfort et al loves to use the argument "if you have told a lie, then you're a liar". Now if I use that against him it would be something like this:

 

The banana argument was false, so you were lying. That makes you a liar. If I ever want to believe in a religion, I want to believe in a true religion and since you're a liar I can't believe in you or the religion you claim to be true, so Christianity is a lie.

 

No wonder he pulled the video and never used the argument again.

[Robbobrob]

The food argument against God is the acorn. Some tribes on the West Coast of North America had to devise a blanching system that had to be repeated more than a dozen times before the nut was considered edible. Now that is old-school trial and error science. I can only imagine how many people died or got seriously ill in those experiments.

 

But then, they were heathens, so they don't count in Creationist debate.

[PeaceOfMind]

Forget the banana, it's all about the peanut butter.

[Sexton Blake]

The banana argument should be that we share 50% of our genes with bananas and upto 99% of our genes with some monkeys but 0% of our genes with dirt which creationists say we came from.