The Creationists Distorting Darwin Blues, Again

ScienceOctober 2009 • Views: 5,733

The intellectual mismatch of the year: NCSE executive director Eugenie C. Scott vs. creationist Ray Comfort. How Creationist ‘Origin’ Distorts Darwin.

Ray Comfort and I agree that “science is a wonderful discipline, to which we are deeply indebted.” We agree that it would be nice for students to get a free copy of Darwins best-known book, On the Origin of Species. I’ll even go further than he might: The Origin —like Shakespeare and the Bible—should be on every educated person’s bookshelf. If you don’t understand evolution, you can’t be considered scientifically literate. And we agree that students should read the Origin thoroughly.

Unfortunately, it will be hard to thoroughly read the version that Comfort will be distributing on college campuses in November. The copy his publisher sent me is missing no fewer than four crucial chapters, as well as Darwin’s introduction. Two of the omitted chapters, Chapters 11 and 12, showcase biogeography, some of Darwin’s strongest evidence for evolution. Which is a better explanation for the distribution of plants and animals around the planet: common ancestry or special creation? Which better explains why island species are more similar to species on the mainland closest to them, rather than to more distant species that share a similar environment? The answer clearly is common ancestry. Today, scientists continue to develop the science of biogeography, confirming, refining, and extending Darwin’s conclusions.

Read the whole thing…

Jump to bottom

74 comments

Dark_Falcon Fri, Oct 30, 2009 6:58:25pm

So now the Creationist are releasing edited versions of Darwin's book to attempt to discredit him. That's low, even for them.

Sharmuta Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:01:53pm

Two of the omitted chapters, Chapters 11 and 12, showcase biogeography, some of Darwin’s strongest evidence for evolution.

Why am I not surprised they would leave out material that shows they're wrong?

Dark_Falcon Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:05:06pm

re: #2 Sharmuta

Why am I not surprised they would leave out material that shows they're wrong?

I wonder how Comfort would take it if someone released an edited version of the bible that attempted to make Christians look blood-thirsty and irrational. I think he'd get pissed. He should reflect upon that fact, but of course he will not.

lastlaugh Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:08:17pm

Biogeography is easy to explain. After the flood killed every living land creature not on the ark, certain animals went one way, others went another.

Dancing along the light of day Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:14:26pm

What rock do these people live under?
I'd like to avoid it.
Charles, many thanks for the work you do exposing these things to the sunlight!

charlz Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:15:09pm

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

So now the Creationist are releasing edited versions of Darwin's book to attempt to discredit him. That's low, even for them.

They're still releasing 3/4 of *Darwin's* book -- that's evolution of a kind, right?

Sharmuta Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:17:04pm

re: #3 Dark_Falcon

I wonder how Comfort would take it if someone released an edited version of the bible that attempted to make Christians look blood-thirsty and irrational. I think he'd get pissed. He should reflect upon that fact, but of course he will not.

It might make Kirk Cameron cry.

Dark_Falcon Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:18:29pm

re: #6 charlz

They're still releasing 3/4 of *Darwin's* book -- that's evolution of a kind, right?

Nope, just duplicity. They can't fight the facts, so they lie.

Varek Raith Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:19:35pm

re: #7 Sharmuta

It might make Kirk Cameron cry.

You could always give him a banana.
/...nope, no sarc here! :)

b_sharp Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:19:56pm

I'll wait until the crockoduck comes out before I bother reading Comfort.

BryanS Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:21:38pm

What a lame thing to do. Clearly this outfit has no interest in honest scientific inquiry.

Varek Raith Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:23:30pm

re: #10 b_sharp

I'll wait until the crockoduck comes out before I bother reading Comfort.

Crocoduck approves.
/

zephirus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:24:27pm

re: #2 Sharmuta

Why am I not surprised they would leave out material that shows they're wrong?

As Eugenie Scott quotes in that article: "Oh foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not."

I wonder how they can deny the work of their Lord that they can see with their own eyes? I would think their Lord would not be very happy about that.

zephirus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:25:53pm

re: #3 Dark_Falcon

Would not necessarily have to be an edited version.

BryanS Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:27:43pm

re: #14 zephirus

Would not necessarily have to be an edited version.

Was thinking the same thing :)

Dark_Falcon Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:29:31pm

re: #14 zephirus

Would not necessarily have to be an edited version.

It could just be a hostile reading. I would maintain that such a reading would be entirely wrong, but I admit that much of that opinion is faith-based.

goddamnedfrank Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:31:42pm

Evolution is not a viral disease. The tactic here is that providing a dead or weakened version of Darwin's writings will provide a vaccine like immunity to the ideas themselves, ignoring the mendacity necessary to even contemplate such a stunt, it will not work.

Varek Raith Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:32:53pm

Crocoduck - Birth of a Legend.

Youtube Video

BryanS Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:33:03pm

re: #16 Dark_Falcon

It could just be a hostile reading. I would maintain that such a reading would be entirely wrong, but I admit that much of that opinion is faith-based.

A lot of what people get out of the the text is based upon the reading. If not, there would be more people that believe Genesis is a literal description of the beginnings of mankind. I think that belief is probably a minority of Christians.

zephirus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:33:27pm

How can these creationists and their ilk walk around with cell phones in their pockets? I guess they have no problem with Electromagnetic Theory. But when God said "Let there be light..." that violated the Law of Conservation of Energy, right? But God created that Law, right? But, but...

zephirus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:34:11pm

re: #17 goddamnedfrank

Evolution is not a viral disease. The tactic here is that providing a dead or weakened version of Darwin's writings will provide a vaccine like immunity to the ideas themselves, ignoring the mendacity necessary to even contemplate such a stunt, it will not work.

Well said.

charlz Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:35:00pm

re: #8 Dark_Falcon

That was meant to be a joke. Not a *good* one perhaps...

zephirus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:36:27pm

re: #16 Dark_Falcon

It could just be a hostile reading. I would maintain that such a reading would be entirely wrong, but I admit that much of that opinion is faith-based.

I don't understand your point. Can you restate? I'm a little dim tonight.

funky chicken Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:38:09pm

I still struggle to grasp why these people are so freaked out by Darwin. Really. His book is kinda boring, and doesn't discuss the origin of life or the origin of the universe or the origin of biochemical precursors (of course...they weren't well characterized when Darwin was alive).

It's bizarre that they fixate on the man the way they do and ascribe all kinds of crazy and evil crap to him.

BryanS Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:40:23pm

re: #24 funky chicken

I still struggle to grasp why these people are so freaked out by Darwin. Really. His book is kinda boring, and doesn't discuss the origin of life or the origin of the universe or the origin of biochemical precursors (of course...they weren't well characterized when Darwin was alive).

It's bizarre that they fixate on the man the way they do and ascribe all kinds of crazy and evil crap to him.

It's explained by the fact that it is a dishonest obfuscation. Focusing on the man instead of the ideas is a way to attack the ideas without addressing the substance, and a sure sign that the person advancing those attacks is knowingly dishonest.

Sharmuta Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:40:37pm

re: #20 zephirus

How can these creationists and their ilk walk around with cell phones in their pockets? I guess they have no problem with Electromagnetic Theory. But when God said "Let there be light..." that violated the Law of Conservation of Energy, right? But God created that Law, right? But, but...

Oh- they're okay with that sort of science. That's sort of science makes their lives easier. Darwin makes them have to re-examine their entire worldview, and thinking is teh hard.

Dark_Falcon Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:40:51pm

re: #23 zephirus

I don't understand your point. Can you restate? I'm a little dim tonight.

I take a positive attitude towards the Bible. Those who read it in a hostile manner could, and do, produce hostile interpretations of it that attack Christianity. I'm not contesting their right to do so, but I strongly disagree with those interpretations and my religion is a big part of the reason why I hold that opinion.

Varek Raith Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:41:07pm

re: #24 funky chicken

I still struggle to grasp why these people are so freaked out by Darwin. Really. His book is kinda boring, and doesn't discuss the origin of life or the origin of the universe or the origin of biochemical precursors (of course...they weren't well characterized when Darwin was alive).

It's bizarre that they fixate on the man the way they do and ascribe all kinds of crazy and evil crap to him.

Those freaked out by the theory of *eviiilution* see is as as direct assault upon their (weak) faith.
*that bit sarc.

zephirus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:41:30pm

re: #24 funky chicken

They are afraid of knowledge. When you eat from the Tree of Knowledge, you are banished from the Garden.

The Sanity Inspector Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:42:11pm

Paleontologist Jerry Coyne shares the story of a recovering fundie he's been corresponding with.

metrolibertarian Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:44:02pm

re: #24 funky chicken

I still struggle to grasp why these people are so freaked out by Darwin. Really. His book is kinda boring, and doesn't discuss the origin of life or the origin of the universe or the origin of biochemical precursors (of course...they weren't well characterized when Darwin was alive).

It's bizarre that they fixate on the man the way they do and ascribe all kinds of crazy and evil crap to him.

Because these people need the Earth to be 6000 years old. In their empty heads, if the Earth is older, and man wasn't created in the form he presently is in, then for some reason the so-called "morality" of the Bible is therefore rendered incorrect.

So they go after the man whose masterwork not only contradicts the idea that man has always been in his present form, but shat all over their dumbass belief the Earth is somehow between 6000 and 10,000 years old.

The Sanity Inspector Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:44:19pm

re: #24 funky chicken

I still struggle to grasp why these people are so freaked out by Darwin. Really. His book is kinda boring, and doesn't discuss the origin of life or the origin of the universe or the origin of biochemical precursors (of course...they weren't well characterized when Darwin was alive).

It's bizarre that they fixate on the man the way they do and ascribe all kinds of crazy and evil crap to him.

The theological implications of evolution appall them in a visceral way, is why. I'm no fundie, but I'm not far from them in temperment, so I kinda know how they feel.

zephirus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:49:09pm

re: #26 Sharmuta

Indeed. BTW, speaking of challenges to worldview...have you ever read the book "Next of Kin: my conversations with chimpanzees", by Roger Fouts? It really made me think about what it means to be human.

lightspeed Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:50:11pm

re: #24 funky chicken

The theory of Evolution (in their minds) attacks a fundamental precept of Chrisitanity--the premise that God created man fully formed at the beginning of time. Evolution, on the other hand, puts forth that man only came into being after many millions of years of evolution. The idea that planet Earth was devoid of human life for the overwhelming majority of its existence is simply incomprehensibe to them. After all, man is the whole purpose of creation (created in His image). What would be the point of God creating all sorts of other creatures to wander the Earth for the whole of existence only to create man so much later? It makes man seem like almost an afterthought. And, of course, creationist don't like the idea of evolving from apes, as if being molded out of clay is any better.

zephirus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:50:46pm

re: #27 Dark_Falcon

Gotcha. Are you a Christian, then?

Racer X Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:52:41pm

There is no such thing as evolution.

Only creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.

Dark_Falcon Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:56:54pm

re: #35 zephirus

Gotcha. Are you a Christian, then?

Yes sir, I am.

zephirus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:59:22pm

re: #4 lastlaugh

Biogeography is easy to explain. After the flood killed every living land creature not on the ark, certain animals went one way, others went another.

//

Obvious, innit? The elitists have to make everything so complicated.

funky chicken Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:59:55pm

re: #31 metrolibertarian

re: #32 The Sanity Inspector

Well...here's the thing. I have a master's in biochem, and did my research in molecular biology (lots of cutting and pasting DNA). I've attended tens, and perhaps hundreds of biology seminars and discussions, and their whole fantasy of "Darwinists" plotting to (?fill in paranoid image here) just doesn't have any, and I mean ANY, basis in reality. Lots of my professors were Christian church members, etc, and nobody, and I mean NOBODY, sat around ... ah, what's the point? Really, Darwin's work was amazing for its time, but it simply didn't argue anything that should be a threat to anybody's religious views.

In a way, Dawkins has been extremely unhelpful in dealing with these folks. His statements sound as dogmatic as they do, which could make uneducated people begin to believe that the YECers/IDers "beliefs" are just as valid as those advanced by scientists.

reine.de.tout Fri, Oct 30, 2009 7:59:56pm

re: #12 Varek Raith

Crocoduck approves.
/

So does turducken.

reine.de.tout Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:01:22pm

re: #28 Varek Raith

Those freaked out by the theory of *eviiilution* see is as as direct assault upon their (weak) faith.
*that bit sarc.

Absolutely correct.

zephirus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:04:04pm

re: #37 Dark_Falcon

Ok. In your mind, is there a conflict between science and religion?

BryanS Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:05:31pm

re: #39 funky chicken

I would agree. Neil deGrasse Tyson had the best way of saying it. Note Dawkins' response.

I know others on this blog disagree, but I think Dawkins, as much as I agree with him, has been harmful in the public debate.

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:05:41pm

re: #24 funky chicken

I still struggle to grasp why these people are so freaked out by Darwin. Really. His book is kinda boring, and doesn't discuss the origin of life or the origin of the universe or the origin of biochemical precursors (of course...they weren't well characterized when Darwin was alive).

It's bizarre that they fixate on the man the way they do and ascribe all kinds of crazy and evil crap to him.

It is odd. Also, the fantasy that people who accept evolution worship Darwin in some kind of way. I mean, I accept that gravity works, but when I drop something I don't yell "Praise Newton!". He didn't make it, he just identified it.

Gus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:07:45pm

Ah yes. The ignorant fool Roy Comfort is crawling out from under his rock again. The man that promote the completely unfounded "theory" of the Crocoduck and constantly dispels the myth in reference to Banana: The Atheist's Nightmare. Using a banana that is cultivated and essentially a creation of man. All of this while working alongside bimbo and B-actor Kirk Cameron.

zephirus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:08:06pm

re: #39 funky chicken

Agreed. As for the term "belief", what bugs me is the phrase "Do you believe in evolution"? It's as ridiculous as "Do you believe in gravity"?

funky chicken Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:08:29pm

re: #34 lightspeed

The theory of Evolution (in their minds) attacks a fundamental precept of Chrisitanity--the premise that God created man fully formed at the beginning of time. Evolution, on the other hand, puts forth that man only came into being after many millions of years of evolution. The idea that planet Earth was devoid of human life for the overwhelming majority of its existence is simply incomprehensibe to them. After all, man is the whole purpose of creation (created in His image). What would be the point of God creating all sorts of other creatures to wander the Earth for the whole of existence only to create man so much later? It makes man seem like almost an afterthought. And, of course, creationist don't like the idea of evolving from apes, as if being molded out of clay is any better.

It's probably the fact that I went to Catholic school, and had an excellent monk who taught the Old Testament in 9th grade. He was very clear that the Genesis creation story was ... a story. Symbolism. Important for what it taught about morality and about early attitudes about women (heh--musta been a liberal), etc. Maybe it's Brother Gary's fault that I find the book of Esther so damned disturbing, start to finish, and wonder why fundies adore it so much. Hmmm. :-)

Again, I never had a monk, priest, or nun try to tell me that the Old Testament was actual, literal truth. It's actually a more interesting read if you work from the symbolism angle, IMHO.

BryanS Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:08:36pm

re: #44 SanFranciscoZionist

It is odd. Also, the fantasy that people who accept evolution worship Darwin in some kind of way. I mean, I accept that gravity works, but when I drop something I don't yell "Praise Newton!". He didn't make it, he just identified it.

I don't think it's inappropriate to acknowledge Darwin's achievements. I don't think I worship him--and I don't see Darwin worship at work when defending Darwin's work in the face of faith based criticism.

Dark_Falcon Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:11:17pm

re: #42 zephirus

Ok. In your mind, is there a conflict between science and religion?

No, there is not an inherent conflict between the two.

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:12:26pm

re: #32 The Sanity Inspector

The theological implications of evolution appall them in a visceral way, is why. I'm no fundie, but I'm not far from them in temperment, so I kinda know how they feel.

I guess I don't have the background to really get it on an, you'll excuse the pun, fundamental level.

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:14:11pm

re: #45 Gus 802

Ah yes. The ignorant fool Roy Comfort is crawling out from under his rock again. The man that promote the completely unfounded "theory" of the Crocoduck and constantly dispels the myth in reference to Banana: The Atheist's Nightmare. Using a banana that is cultivated and essentially a creation of man. All of this while working alongside bimbo and B-actor Kirk Cameron.

OK, I think 'bimbo' is a bit harsh.

The kids at my school were allowed to wear Halloween costumes today. There were two bananas. I thought of Kirk.

zephirus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:14:40pm

re: #45 Gus 802

Ah yes. The ignorant fool Roy Comfort is crawling out from under his rock again. The man that promote the completely unfounded "theory" of the Crocoduck and constantly dispels the myth in reference to Banana: The Atheist's Nightmare. Using a banana that is cultivated and essentially a creation of man. All of this while working alongside bimbo and B-actor Kirk Cameron.

..and while talking to them on his cell phone with nary a worry about whether he "believes" in the science that made that possible.

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:14:46pm

re: #46 zephirus

Agreed. As for the term "belief", what bugs me is the phrase "Do you believe in evolution"? It's as ridiculous as "Do you believe in gravity"?

"Witches don't believe in gods. They're too familiar with them. It would be like believing in the postman."

BryanS Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:15:09pm

re: #51 SanFranciscoZionist

OK, I think 'bimbo' is a bit harsh.

The kids at my school were allowed to wear Halloween costumes today. There were two bananas. I thought of Kirk.

The correct term for men, I think, is mimbo :)

Gus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:15:47pm

re: #51 SanFranciscoZionist

OK, I think 'bimbo' is a bit harsh.

The kids at my school were allowed to wear Halloween costumes today. There were two bananas. I thought of Kirk.

I was thinking of using mimbo.

Were they Chiquita bananas or Dole bananas?

Gus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:18:04pm

re: #48 BryanS

I don't think it's inappropriate to acknowledge Darwin's achievements. I don't think I worship him--and I don't see Darwin worship at work when defending Darwin's work in the face of faith based criticism.

The thing they don't seem to understand is that Darwin's theories have evolved from his work. Evolutionary science is constantly evolving.

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:18:13pm

re: #55 Gus 802

I was thinking of using mimbo.

Were they Chiquita bananas or Dole bananas?

I don't know. Just bananas. Yellow. About five and half feet tall.

We also had two teletubbies, a lot of girls dressed in their guy friends' football gear, and a kid in a full gorilla suit. Oh, and a kid who had built himself into a kissing booth. And one girl in full old-fashioned nun's regalia, which I thought was very funny, because the only nun on the staff wears slacks.

Gus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:19:45pm

re: #57 SanFranciscoZionist

I don't know. Just bananas. Yellow. About five and half feet tall.

We also had two teletubbies, a lot of girls dressed in their guy friends' football gear, and a kid in a full gorilla suit. Oh, and a kid who had built himself into a kissing booth. And one girl in full old-fashioned nun's regalia, which I thought was very funny, because the only nun on the staff wears slacks.

A kissing booth? Now that sound like a must have costume. ;)

zephirus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:20:16pm

re: #47 funky chicken

The Catholic Church has been very reasonable as far as evolution goes.

zephirus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:23:07pm

re: #49 Dark_Falcon

No, there is not an inherent conflict between the two.

Good.

funky chicken Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:26:15pm

According to US biophysicist Dr. Dean Kenyon, “Biological macroevolution collapses without the twin pillars of the geological time-scale and the fossil record as currently interpreted. Few scientists would contest this statement. This is why the upcoming conference concentrates on geology and paleontology. Recent research in these two disciplines adds powerful support to the already formidable case against teaching Darwinian macroevolution as if it were proven fact.”

How many of these YEC folks are also advocates for nuclear power generation? See, we base a lot of our understanding of the fossil record and geological time on radioactive decay calculations. C-14 dating of early nomadic tribes here in North America puts the age of the earth beyond the YEC timetable...

I really, really don't know how somebody could "believe" in predictable behavior of radioisotopes in nuclear power plants but not "believe" in radioisotope dating.

sngnsgt Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:30:05pm

re: #36 Racer X

There is no such thing as evolution.

Only creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.

LOL! I'm keeping that one.

Dark_Falcon Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:31:39pm

re: #56 Gus 802

The thing they don't seem to understand is that Darwin's theories have evolved from his work. Evolutionary science is constantly evolving.

Ludwig had a good answer to it earlier today:

re: #60 LudwigVanQuixote

Ahhh true believers...

I think at this point, I would like to comment on the phenomena of projection.

A person like Inhofe thinks that science is something to be believed in rather than accepted based on evidence. In fact, ID types and climate deniers share this misconception about science.

Since they think that there is a choice to believe in it or not based on faith, then any other scientific argument becomes an article of faith. This is why they so bitterly talk about a religion of Darwin and a religion of global warming.

They see these things as competing dogmas. They see themselves as defenders of their own dogmas and they project onto the advocates of science the same lack of scientific understanding and scientific principle that they themselves employ when shrieking about ID or climate denial.

It is deeply disturbing and ironic.

Fundamentalist religion is always an argument based on authority - hence all of the false lists of "scientists" who disagree with the science. Hence, all of the vain idea that bluster beats mathematics and that talking points replace facts. The mindset that says, "G-d said it (of course it is what they believe G-d said, and let's not forget there might be other takes on that as well) so it's good enough for me, that settles it!" is the perfect mindset for the sorts of non-arguments that these clowns make in terms of the science.

Real science as always is about facts and observations. It is about following the data where it leads and accepting truths that are not always comfortable. This is not done because people want uncomfortable truths to be true, but rather because they are convinced by the evidence that this is so. The only authority in science is the data and the analysis of the data.

Of course, this is the opposite of a fundie view, where the only authority is the authority that one grants his preacher and his personal take on the dogma.

This is all a long way of saying that people like Inhofe do not have the mental machinery needed to talk about science in a scientific way. From the start they do not know what it is or how it works and they assume, that science works the same way they do. Because of this, they respond with religious fervor to scientific questions, while mistaking the analysis of data for an article of faith.

It is the grossest failure of our education system that such foolishness persists.

zephirus Fri, Oct 30, 2009 8:33:20pm

re: #61 funky chicken

How many of these YEC folks are also advocates for nuclear power generation? See, we base a lot of our understanding of the fossil record and geological time on radioactive decay calculations. C-14 dating of early nomadic tribes here in North America puts the age of the earth beyond the YEC timetable...

I really, really don't know how somebody could "believe" in predictable behavior of radioisotopes in nuclear power plants but not "believe" in radioisotope dating.

The same way they can chant "drill baby drill" and say that the earth is only 6000 years old.

lostlakehiker Fri, Oct 30, 2009 9:31:23pm

But I have faith that college students are sharp enough to realize that Comfort's take on Darwin and evolution is simply bananas.

Specially created bananas, at that.

Why are we even having this debate? It is as if heliocentrism were still fiercely contested, and terracentric dogmatists were reviling Galileo and calling those who find his reasoning persuasive "Galileanists" and believers in a false faith.

Pepper Fox Fri, Oct 30, 2009 9:38:01pm

So how do you think people would react if atheists started handing this out on campuses. Image: Holy%20Bible.jpg I personally would love to see the shitstorm which would emerge from that.

fifth_of_november Fri, Oct 30, 2009 9:40:21pm

It's funny how Creationists treat Darwin as if he were the end-all-be-all of Evolutionary Theory. Hello! There's been a lot of new discoveries in the past 150 years that have changed the exact details of the Theory. While Creationists look at that and view it as a sign of weakness (because they subscribe to an unchanging, dogmatic view of reality), they don't realize that's how Science works!

Attacking Darwin to disprove Modern Evolutionary Theory is like attacking Newton in order to disprove Quantum Mechanics.

emcesq Fri, Oct 30, 2009 9:54:22pm

What a crock, said duckodile...

Kruk Sat, Oct 31, 2009 1:40:50am

re: #61 funky chicken

How many of these YEC folks are also advocates for nuclear power generation? See, we base a lot of our understanding of the fossil record and geological time on radioactive decay calculations. C-14 dating of early nomadic tribes here in North America puts the age of the earth beyond the YEC timetable...

I really, really don't know how somebody could "believe" in predictable behavior of radioisotopes in nuclear power plants but not "believe" in radioisotope dating.

That's because God *wants* his favoured creation to have nuclear power (and weapons, natch), but likes to test us every now and then with some C-14 isotopes that contradict the Bible. He has a wacky sense of humour, God does.

SixDegrees Sat, Oct 31, 2009 3:13:00am

When I first heard about this creationist "edition" of the Origin, I predicted that it would be heavily edited and even re-written throughout, in order to give future cover to creationists who would use it for citation of their drivel.

Color me unsurprised, then, to hear that this is exactly what has happened. And look forward, in the future, to hear creationists spouting that Darwin "doesn't provide any evidence" for key portions of his theory - the parts the conveniently left out.

It would be interesting to have a Darwin scholar run through the book to find the outright lies that the creationists have almost certainly sprinkled throughout it.

enoughalready Sat, Oct 31, 2009 3:24:49am

re: #18 Varek Raith

I got as far as "and I think I beat him" and I had to stop watching. I'm sorry. Logic gates everywhere just exploded. Bill O'Reilly beating Richard Dawkins? In a debate? If you believe that you would be dumb enough to buying the crap that Cameron is peddling.

SixDegrees Sat, Oct 31, 2009 3:44:45am

re: #3 Dark_Falcon

I wonder how Comfort would take it if someone released an edited version of the bible that attempted to make Christians look blood-thirsty and irrational. I think he'd get pissed. He should reflect upon that fact, but of course he will not.

They'd react by storming bookstores and burning every copy they could lay hands on.

tdg2112 Sat, Oct 31, 2009 8:33:47am

re: #47 funky chicken

I do find it amusing that Catholic priests/monks etc., the persecutors of Galileo, seem to have so much less problem with Science than so many other Christian groups. My impression is that they learned something and are serious about looking at the science and reality and its impact on philosophy and religion. While the American political conservative combined with religion will attack modernity while at the same time expose social Darwinism and never batter an eye until you point it out to them.

It's been a while since I found it, but I tracked it down once. The original supporters of ID/Creationism (sorry, Ii know they are separate, but I can't remember the evolution of the thought and can't find the articles and web sites I'm referring to) pretty clearly spell out their problem with science as being a problem with modern philosophy. Maybe someone has the links and can post them. It's actually pretty interesting reading in explaining their motives in being so obsessed with discrediting Evolution (and while not directly mentioned, likely their problem with Climate Change too)

Yashmak Sat, Oct 31, 2009 9:05:41am

The new strategy (apparently):

If you can't refute a thing, co-opt and edit a thing.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

The Creationists Distorting Darwin Blues, Again

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud