Ray Comfort is an unbelievable dolt!

[BurtWorm]

His arguments against Eugenie Scott at US News over his project to give away free Origins of the Species with his lame-brained creationist intro tacked onto it is astonishingly, brazenly, proudly ignorant. There simply is no better word for it. His ideas are like those of the smartest six-year-old in Sunday school, on the order of, "If we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys, huh? Huh? Answer me that!" I'm sure he's asked that classic "stumper" before, but his latest bullshit is hardly more to the point:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/11/02/ray-comfort-responds-to-genie-scott-on-creationist-origin-of-species.html

...

Scott quoted a famous geneticist, who said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." I would like to drop one word, so that the quote is true. It should read, "Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution." For example, evolution has no explanation as to why and how around 1.4 million species of animals evolved as male and female. No one even goes near explaining how and why each species managed to reproduce (during the millions of years the female was supposedly evolving to maturity) without the right reproductive machinery.

Nor does any evolutionary believer adequately address the fact that all those 1.4 million species managed to evolve into maturity together in our lifetime. Nothing we have in creation is half evolved. The cow has a working udder to make drinkable milk. The bee has working apparatus to make edible honey. We don't find a half-evolved cow or bee. None of the 1.4 million species on the Earth has half an eye. All have the necessary functioning equipment, from the brain, to the teeth, to the eye, to limbs, to reproductive necessities. Everything that we see in creation is in full working order—from the sun, to the mixture of the air, to the seasons, to fruit trees and vegetables, to the animal kingdom—from the tiny ant right up to the massive elephant.

But not only do we see this mature completion in creation; we see it displayed in the fossil record. It reveals that each animal was complete. Historical and present creation stands as a stark testimony to the folly of Darwinian evolution.

Darwin was certainly on to something when he said, "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy."


....

etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam!


RAY, YOU DIMWIT: You've been told again and again and again by people who know a lot more about this shit than you do that evolution works GRADUALLY OVER TIME. Get this through your and your sidekick Kirk Cameron's pea brains and stop consuming resources with arguments you've had blown to bits over and over and over!


(PS: If everything is in full-working order, what's the matter with your brain? More to the point, why do some cows develop with udders that do not work? Why are some individuals among those species born with half an eye, or no eye, or stumps for limbs, or with limbs growing where they shouldn't be growing. You fucking moron!)

[frogmarch]

1. And furthermore, Ray, you pea brain,

what about atavism? Haven't you ever heard of atavistic characteristics such as the hind legs that sometimes appear on whales and snakes? Teeth in chicken? Humans with extra breasts or nipples?

Just STFU, Ray. You're nothing but an ignorant blowhard.


Edit: I changed "worm brain" to pea brain" in the subject line, so as not to offend the OP. :-)

[BurtWorm]

2. (I appreciate that gesture.)

;-)

And amen (so to speak) to your points! :toast:

[trotsky]

3. I suspect Ray never fully recovered from his "The Banana - the Atheist's Worst Nightmare" incident.

He was so utterly smacked down and humiliated, his ULTIMATE SHINING EXAMPLE of the undeniability of creationism, actually showed the truth of evolution via selection! LOLOLOL

[struggle4progress]

4. Debating the creationists is a pointless exercise. A meaningful conversation presupposes a common

ground, from which one can proceed. A "debate", about a scientific theory, in which one party seeks to discuss the topic from the scientific point of view, while the other party seeks to discuss the topic from a non-scientific point of view, is not a meaningful conversation: it is an empty but noisy exercise in cross-talk

On my view, Eugenie Scott makes a common mistake of scientists who "debate" anti-evolutionists, namely, failing to point out clearly the starting point for scientific inquiry Let us attempt a naturalistic/materialistic account of natural/material phenomena. This is important because Ray Comfort, like most anti-evolutionists, attacks evolution on philosophical grounds, rather than on scientific grounds; such anti-evolutionists are often guilty of poor (and trite) philosophizing, but their critiques are non-scientific and hence cannot be addressed by scientific evidence; science (by definition) never seeks supernatural explanations, and supernatural explanations (by definition) remain beyond the scope of the scientific method

Aside: "The" theory of evolution is a misnomer; there are a variety of theories that agree in broad outline but differ in detail. This multiplicity of theories will endure forever, because we do not know everything, and so our "knowledge" is in perpetual flux -- a state of affairs not limited to evolution. The anti-evolutionists typically seize upon this flux as evidence of dishonesty and confusion, whereas it is (in fact) typical of any principled search for knowledge

Aside: "Science" and "Truth," of course, are not synonyms: an assertion may be entirely meaningless from the scientific point of view, and yet it may have important and interesting significance from other point of view. Consider, for example, the so-called Continuum Hypothesis ("Every infinite set of real numbers, that cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the set of all real numbers, can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the set of all integers"): although it cannot possibly be a scientific assertion, it is nevertheless of great importance in the history of mathematical logic. Unfortunately, in debates, both "pro-evolutionists" and "anti-evolutionists" often seem to assume the debate ought to be about "Truth" rather than "Science"

Aside: Although "Science" is not synonymous with "Truth," it nevertheless provides our current best method for understanding and controlling the natural/material world: we simply have no other approach with nearly the same practical power. But perhaps not every "reality" is naturalistic/materialistic: people, for example, generally resent being treated like mere automatons by someone who completely disregards their subjectivity and seeks merely to discover rules governing their behavior -- and we resent it enough to have an extensive vocabulary ("manipulative," "sociopathic," &c) to describe the jerks who use other people in such fashion

Aside: A really useful scientific critique, of a scientific theory, produces an improved scientific theory. It is rare, but not impossible, for philosophical critique, of a scientific theory, to produce scientific insights. A philosophical critique, of a scientific theory, which does not produce an improved scientific theory, is only of interest if it produces other significant insights. If Ray Comfort wants to provide a useful scientific critique of evolution, he should devise a alternate scientific theory which can compete with evolution as an explanation of the facts; if he wants, instead, to provide a useful philosophical critique of evolution, he should say something interesting. As far as I can tell, he does neither: he merely cherry-picks arguments in support of a predetermined conclusion

[trotsky]

7. "But perhaps not every 'reality' is naturalistic/materialistic"

And that right there is exactly the wiggle room Comfort and the Kooky Kreationist Krew need to keep going.

[struggle4progress]

10. Can you give a materialist account of the logical particle "not"? I give this example as an

alternate to my previous Continuum Hypothesis example, which you ignored or perhaps failed to understand

Comfort is engaged in noisy rhetoric, and no amount of philosophical analysis will affect his position: he has already made up his mind

[trotsky]

11. Mathematics is a model.

The universe does not do calculations before things happen. So while you think you've got some brilliant point, you really don't.

And Comfort gets his wiggle room from people like you. So thanks!

[struggle4progress]

12. I cannot imagine how you think my views aid the creationists, since I have noted clearly,

upthread and elsewhere, that they do not even begin from a scientific position in their attempts to discredit a scientific theory

I will state this again, since you seem not to understand it: Science is the effort to provide a material and natural account of material and natural phenomena: miracles, deities, and other such supernatural topics simply cannot intersect scientific theory in any manner; science by definition proceeds from the assumption that a material and natural explanation can be found for material and natural phenomena. This observation has consequences both for the religious opponents of science and for the scientific opponents of religion: religious opponents of science talk nonsense if they try to introduce alleged supernaturalities into discussions of scientific theories, while scientific opponents of religion utter vacuous tautologies if they try to use scientific theories to discuss alleged supernaturalities

Someone might be a competent scientist without believing material and natural phenomena cover all the bases of human experience, provided they do not inappropriately mix things together: here one must distinguish philosophical from scientific analyses. It is extremely difficult (if it is even possible) to give a coherent account of various topics of real interest (such as "truth," "mercy," "love," ...) without sounding like a Platonist, and the claim that everything can be reduced to material and natural phenomena will unavoidably encounter the paradoxes of self reference if pushed too far -- so analytic philosophy and a century of mathematical logic will strongly suggest that a reductionist program, of explaining absolutely everything in terms of material and natural phenomena, can never be fully carried out. But, of course, such philosophical conclusions cannot influence the scientific enterprise of attempting to provide a material and natural account of material and natural phenomena: insisting that everything must have a material and natural explanation is the only possible scientific view (although it fails as philosophy)

The real problem Comfort and his ilk have with theories like evolution is probably that they do not believe material and natural phenomena cover all the bases of human experience. In my view, that is a defensible philosophical stance, though very ineptly attended by Comfort. Comfort, for example, wants to insert introduce supernatural topics into scientific discussions, and I object to all such jabber -- because Science by definition is the effort to provide a material and natural account of material and natural phenomena. My parallel criticism of Scott (in the "debate" linked by the OP) is simply that she does not seem to notice that she and Comfort don't share enough common ground to have a coherent conversation

[darkstar3]

13. Sorry, s4p, I think trotsky has you nailed, and here's why:

1. In post #4, you attempt to conflate two very different meanings of the word 'theory'. Evolution is a scientific theory, which means that it is a hypothesis that has been thoroughly and repeatedly tested, over and over and over again. That is the meaning of a scientific theory. The meaning that you attempt to conflate with this is the vernacular form of the word, which equates the concepts of scientific theory and hypothesis, thereby making a distinction impossible.

2. In post #4, you muddy the definition of the word truth. Your statement that although it cannot possibly be a scientific assertion, it is nevertheless of great importance in the history of mathematical logic sets up a false definition of "truth' as something that is simply important. You are confusing the words "truth", "truism", and "reasonable approximation."

3. The real problem Comfort and his ilk have with theories like evolution is probably that they do not believe material and natural phenomena cover all the bases of human experience. In my view, that is a defensible philosophical stance, though very ineptly attended by Comfort.
emphasis mine
I have two points here. Your first sentence is a defense of Comfort's of the "God of the gaps" argument, and an oversimplification of what Comfort is doing. Your second sentence is somewhat intellectually dishonest and gives Comfort a leg to stand on. Why? Because by conveniently omitting the fact that Comfort has jumped from "we haven't explained everything with science yet" to "God did what we haven't explained," and then stating that Comfort's position is 'a defensible philosophical stance', you let Comfort and his backers have all the wiggle room they need, and do a disservice to the term philosophy.

So, yeah, trotsky stated nothing but the truth when he said that Comfort gets his wiggle room from people like you.

Edit: clarity

[trotsky]

14. Thanks, darkstar3.

Don't think I could have said it any better.

[struggle4progress]

15. You attribute to me views that are not mine: in particular, you seem to believe my views

are those of creationists like Comfort -- but those are not my views

For example, with respect to your #1, you accuse me of conflating two different meanings of "theory." I suspect that what you have in mind here is the creationist habit of triumphantly asserting But the theory of evolution is just a theory! That slogan does seem to me to conflate two different conventions about the meaning of the word "theory" -- but there is a more important objection to the slogan: it misses the essential nature of the scientific enterprise. Science is not concerned with "absolute truth" (if there even is such a thing): it is concerned with making better and better approximate descriptions of natural material phenomena. Objecting that a scientific theory is "wrong" is not interesting from the scientific point of view; what is interesting from the scientific point of view is obtaining an improved or better theory. Thus the proper scientific retort to the creationist slogan But the theory of evolution is just a theory! is simply Let's see your proposal for an improved or better theory. The creationists have no scientific reply to that retort, because their reply involves the supernatural

In your #2, you claim I confuse "truth" with "importance." My point, however, was that people attribute "truth" to statements with no natural material referents. A number of logicians, for example, will agree There are models of set theory in which the Continuum Hypothesis is true and other models in which CH is false; such assertions cannot be understood in purely material terms, since these models do not exist in any scientific sense. Similarly, ordinary people will often accept, as true, statements like Love is a good thing, where the "thing" under consideration is not reducible to natural material phenomena

In #3, you claim I support Comfort's .. "G-d of the gaps". But this is entirely your own hallucination: the points I have made in this thread are entirely philosophical, and (aside from quoting you and discussing your allegations) I have nowhere used the word "G-d" in this thread. Nor can I see how a statement of my own view ("In my view, that is a defensible philosophical stance") can possibly be "intellectually dishonest." If you read my prior post, you should see that I expressed sympathy for the view "material and natural phenomena <do not> cover all the bases of human experience" and never explicitly discussed any jump from we haven't explained everything with science yet to G-d did what we haven't explained. The incompleteness of science is a normal and perpetual state of affairs; on the other hand, as I have stated clearly several times, the use of supernatural terms (like "G-d") is nonscientific by definition

You seem to be unable to distinguish philosophy from science. If I speak from a scientific position, then I must by definition take the view material and natural phenomena do cover all the bases of human experience. If I speak instead from a philosophical position, I myself find considerable reason to suspect oppositely that material and natural phenomena do not cover all the bases of human experience. The fact, that these two assertions appear formally contradictory, is not troubling because they occur under different assumptions: in particular, the possibility that material and natural phenomena do not cover all the bases of human experience is simply not available in scientific discussions

As a scientific matter, I wholeheartedly support the teaching of evolution: it is a wonderful scheme for synthesis and interpretation of known facts, drawing on the geological record, radioisotope physics, taxonomy, molecular biology and other vast disciplines. I know of no serious scientific contender for an explanation of our origins. If someone provides a better scientific theory, we will teach that. Meanwhile, the arguments of the creationists are not scientific arguments, and I continue to assert that it is a mistake to treat them as scientific arguments

[darkstar3]

16. I have made no assumptions, merely pointed out the flaws in your post(s).

Further, if you re-read what you have written with a critical eye, you will indeed see that you are inappropriately redefining the terms "theory" and "truth".

On "God of the gaps", it is not my hallucination. Comfort is indeed engaging in this logical fallacy, and by stating that his is a philosophically defensible position, you defend this fallacy. You can split hairs and hedge words all you want to try and wiggle out of that, but the bottom line is that Comfort's position is entirely indefensible, and by even giving it a modicum of respect, you give it a foothold where it should have none.

Finally, your last paragraph is a perfect example of non-overlapping magisteria, substituting "philosophy" for "religion". Dr. Dawkins doesn't buy the NOM argument for religion, and neither do I, and I certainly don't buy it for philosophy.

[pokerfan]

5. Saw that on Pharyngula

And then, of course, there's the fact that Ray Comfort is an idiot, putting his name on science books. I do not use the word "idiot" lightly here, either — the man is demonstrably ignorant and obtuse. Here's his first argument for his cause:

Scott quoted a famous geneticist, who said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." I would like to drop one word, so that the quote is true. It should read, "Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution." For example, evolution has no explanation as to why and how around 1.4 million species of animals evolved as male and female. No one even goes near explaining how and why each species managed to reproduce (during the millions of years the female was supposedly evolving to maturity) without the right reproductive machinery.

No one?

NO ONE?

I have explained this stuff to him repeatedly. I first covered it almost a year ago, when he misrepresented Darwin and claimed that women evolved millions of years after men. Comfort is the kook who claimed that Darwin believed that humans initially reproduced by asexual fission…and now he's putting out an edition of the Origin?

I know he has seen my explanation, because he responded to it in the august pages of Whirled Nut Daily. Of course, what he did was acknowledge this explanation:

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/scienceblogs/pharyngula/~3/DHM-3UHnH_8/ray_comfort_replies_to_eugenie.php

[vixengrl]

6. I think it's terribly simple in Comfort's case, and that of his side-kick, too--

even if they weren't terribly bone-ignorant, which is entirely possible as such people undoubtedly exist all over the globe. They are invested in their ignorance. Their money, reputations, lifestyles, core belief systems, and on and on, are wrapped up in being ignorant of evolution. Their business associations. Their followers. The implacable enemies they would have if they deviated. The crap they've riled against evolution, the lies they've fostered on the behalf of creationism, the sheer amount of energy and bullshit they've wrapped up in their self-identification as creationists--

If they actually let even a little of this actually simple, elegant, and rational theory start making sense to them. calling into question any part of this massive investment--they would be so totally screwed. They would have to actually analyze their beliefs in a mature way that accommodates reality, and render useless all the materials they've already put out and get royalties from. They would have to renounce statements they've presented as fact that were actually pitiable untruths if not outright falsifications. And that would *hurt*. Oh, it would be honest and correct to do so, but you will never see it happen.

Or they would better people.


(Edit--I'm often not that grammatical when I'm being polemical.)

[BurtWorm]

9. You're right, of course.

They're not having an argument with science or scientists. They're having an argument with their false ideas of science and scientists. If they tried to grapple with the real thing, they'd get knocked on their asses--and maybe have a little sense knocked into their heads in the process. But that's not on their agenda because they're satisfied with themselves as they are.

[hunter]

8. Dolts in science, dolts in theology, pretty much dolts all around.

How horrible it must be to live with a mind stuffed full of nonsense
under the impotent god creator of a tiny little Gumby universe.

He was once a little green slab of clay. Gumby!
You should see what Gumby can do today. Gumby!
He can walk into any book, with his pony pal Pokey, too.
If you’ve got a heart then Gumby’s a part of you.