Origin 150th: Time to Mock the Creationists
51; With the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s Origin just around the corner (Nov. 24th), Evangelist Ray Comfort and actor Kirk Cameron and volunteers are invading some 50 universities today to hand out free copies of Darwin’s magnum opus. These, however, are spiked with a critical introduction that criticizes evolutionary theory and presents the Christian gospel. Amanda Gefter at New Scientist is trying to pre-empt the effort. She wrote an editorial mocking Comfort and trying to make the messenger look ridiculous. Typical words in her article: outdated, wrong, bizarre, pseudo-scientific, ignorance, laughable, bananas. Cameron says, “All we want to do is propose the opposing and correct view.” The Origin into Schools Project website elaborates:
A gracious man once said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” However, it seems that some contemporary atheists don’t share such honorable convictions. When they found out that I was writing an Introduction to this book, they threatened lawsuits, tried to organize themselves into gangs with the intent of tearing the Introduction out of the book, and have even talked about book burnings.
The site also cites Darwin’s own words from his Introduction to the Origin: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Richard Dawkins allegedly told students to rip out Comfort’s introduction. Comfort responded, “It seems very strange that Professor Dawkins would say that my Introduction didn’t worry him at all, and in the next breath tell university students to rip it out. If, I am, as he says, an ‘ignorant fool,’ then what I have written will be nothing but ignorance and foolishness. So why is he so concerned? I think the man protesteth too much.”
You can read Amanda’s hot air if you want to (remember, she’s the one whose motive-mongering piece was pulled by New Scientist – see 02/26/2009, but two months later described her vertigo when she was slain in the spirit of Charlie, 04/11/2009). Notice that something different happens here at Creation-Evolution Headlines. We give you the original sources and quote extensively from the evolutionists’ best champions. Then we set apart our editorializing which, though spicy and satirical sometimes, is directly related to things just said by the champions in the body of the article. It critically examines their own specific statements and logic. You can check it all for yourself. Gefter, and her henchmen at New Scientist, by contrast, hand you predigested us-vs-them, either-or verdicts like this:As for the creationist Origin, I see no need to seriously worry about it. The arguments in Comfort’s introduction are so outdated, wrong and at times downright bizarre that anyone with a half a brain will realize immediately that it is bogus; meanwhile, Darwin’s well-reasoned, evidence-based text that follows shines with added brilliance by comparison.
We respect our intelligent readers too much to hand them such shallow rhetoric full of loaded words. Here is a link to the Introduction Gefter swept into the trash, hoping you wouldn’t look at it: Introduction (PDF). Go ahead and read it yourself and form your own opinion. Gefter then appealed to authority by calling in the Darwin Dobermans, Eugenie Scott and Ken Miller, hoping you would fear them instead of forming your own opinion.
Our commentary should not be construed as an endorsement of Comfort or his approach, but his website at Living Waters is completely up-front, honest and open about what he is trying to do. He certainly has the right in a free country to present his point of view with his ministry’s own money. If you think some of his arguments are weak, you can judge for yourself. Some of them might be strong. Keep in mind that one strong, true argument can overcome a thousand volleys of mudslinging. Our readers are intelligent enough to discern valid arguments on their own.
The Darwin Party already has complete control of the universities, the textbooks, the media, the courts and the government. Why are they so paranoid about one man handing out free material that is 90% Charlie and 10% critical analysis? Who is really going bananas here? They retort and deride; we report so you can decide.