Re: [asa] What is the Christian reaction to Ray Comfort's use of "The Origin of Species"

Heya Mike,

The Christian community, and I should think think any association of
Christian scientists, is duty-bound to provide an answer to slights like
these. But I think there's a problem that needs to be addressed, one much
larger than this latest relatively meager offering by Comfort.

I'm talking, of course, about the music video "Danger! High Voltage!" by
Electric Six.

This so called "music video" at points takes place in what looks to be a
Natural History museum, featuring a scantily-clad woman (who bears an
uncanny likeness to Eugenie Scott) wearing a flashing brasierre, sitting on
top of a biology artifact (in this case, a stuffed moose), making out with
an archaeologist wearing a flashing codpiece. I think it's hard to ignore
the implicit maligning of evolutionary theory invoked in this imagery.

If that weren't enough, the song makes use of explicitly religious concepts.
I quote, with my emphasis added.

"Fire in the disco!
Fire in the taco bell!
Fire in the disco!
*Fire in the gates of hell!*"

I think it's clear that, unless and until the ASA explicitly denounces this
affront to science education and scientists at large, Christianity will
suffer in the eyes of intellectuals the world over. As of this writing, the
youtube video of this (and there are multiple ones) has received over two
million hits. That's, presumably, over two million people who are going to
be deeply misled about archaeology, evolutionary theory, and Maxwell's
equations - the latter of which lends itself to a natural security concern,
as the American economy depends deeply on electricity.

How long will Christians remind silent about this? Where is the ASA on this
outrage? Where is Ken Miller? Where is the Pope?

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:

> Hi Bernie,
>
>
>
> “If this stuff isn’t repudiated by the Christian community, then it will
> serve as a self-mockery of the Christian community in the eyes of
> intellectuals. Dawkins will pick up on it, and Eugenie has also been doing
> battles with Comfort lately, so this will be more fodder for her arsenal.”
>
>
>
> True intellectuals do not peddle in stereotypes and guilt-by-association.
> Any “intellectual” trying to extrapolate Comfort’s antics to the larger
> Christian community would be a pseudo-intellectual.
>
>
>
> As for Comfort, I never heard of him until his stupid banana argument went
> viral in cyberspace. I even poked fun of it here:
>
>
>
> http://telicthoughts.com/the-orange/
>
>
>
> You might want to consider that Comfort is engaged in a *publicity stunt*
> to draw more attention to himself and you are asking the ASA to assist him
> in these regards. The best thing to do when dealing with an
> attention-seeking publicity hound is to ignore him.
>
>
>
> Besides, if the ASA is supposed to police such antics among people who are
> not members of the ASA, then where do you draw the line? Must the ASA
> comment on every future publicity stunt from any new creationist clamoring
> for attention?
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> *To:* asa <asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 15, 2009 9:19 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [asa] What is the Christian reaction to Ray Comfort's use
> of "The Origin of Species"
>
> “They also didn't cite that Collins disagrees with them concerning
> chimpanzees in the Language of God.”
>
>
>
> RE: quoting Collins as pro-ID and then implying he is anti-evolution when
> he is actually pro-evolution.
>
>
>
> This sounds like a trick out of the playbook of the ‘Expelled” movie For
> example, in “expelled” they interview McGrath (on an unrelated topic),
> making/promoting the assumption that McGrath is pro-ID and anti-evolution.
> McGrath actually wrote negative comments about ID and is pro-evolution as
> far as I can tell.
>
>
>
> If this stuff isn’t repudiated by the Christian community, then it will
> serve as a self-mockery of the Christian community in the eyes of
> intellectuals. Dawkins will pick up on it, and Eugenie has also been doing
> battles with Comfort lately, so this will be more fodder for her arsenal.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Rich Blinne [mailto:rich.blinne@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 15, 2009 4:40 PM
> *To:* Dehler, Bernie
> *Cc:* asa; Randy Isaac
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] What is the Christian reaction to Ray Comfort's use
> of "The Origin of Species"
>
>
>
> You can see the pdf of it already:
>
>
>
> http://assets.livingwaters.com/pdf/OriginofSpecies.pdf
>
>
>
> Page 10 of the introduction cited Francis Collins from the following UK
> Times article that marked the release of *The Language of God*. (Randy, it
> might be interesting to get Dr. Collins' reaction given they also rehash the
> faux Nazi connection on pp. 36-9 which I believe caused a falling out
> between him and Coral Ridge.)
>
>
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article673663.ece
>
>
>
> They quoted this as follows:
>
>
>
> To ponder how DNA’s amazing structure could have come together by sheer
> accident is indeed amazing, and has even led some to consider the
> possibility of design. Based on his study of DNA, the director of the U.S.
> National human Genome research Institute concluded there must be a God.
> Francis Collins, the scientist who led the team that cracked the human
> genome, believes it provides a rational basis for a Creator:
>
>
>
> “When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter
> instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of
> mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page
> without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a
> vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”
>
>
>
> After quoting Collins, Comfort says this:
>
>
>
> DNA is an incredibly detailed language, revealing vast amounts of
> information encoded in each and every living cell— design which could not
> have arisen by purely naturalistic means. In every other area of our world,
> we recognize that information requires intelligence and design requires a
> designer. with our present-day knowledge of DNA, this presents a formidable
> challenge to Darwinian evolution.
>
>
>
>
>
> But somehow strangely -- shall we say by chance? -- they didn't quote the
> following from the Times article a few paragraphs down:
>
>
>
> “I see God’s hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose
> to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of
> evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that
> is not the way,” he says.
>
>
>
> The next section goes onto the next page and attempts to explain away the
> similarities between the chimpanzee and human genomes using material from
> Answers in Genesis. They also didn't cite that Collins disagrees with them
> concerning chimpanzees in the *Language of God.*
>
>
>
> A further example of this close relationship stems from examination of
> the anatomy of human and chimpanzee chromosomes. Chromosomes are the visible
> manifestation of the DNA genome, apparent in the light microscope at the
> time that a cell divides. Each chromosome contains hundreds of genes. Figure
> 5.3 shows a comparison of the chromosomes between a human and a chimpanzee.
> The human has twenty-three pairs of chromosomes, but the chimpanzee has
> twenty-four. The difference in the chromosome number appears to be a
> consequence of two ancestral chromosomes having fused together to generate
> human chromosome 2. That the human must be a fusion is further suggested by
> studying the gorilla and orangutan — they each have twenty-four pairs of
> chromosomes, looking much like the chimp.
>
>
>
> Recently, with the determination of the complete sequence of the human
> genome, it has become possible to look at the precise location where this
> proposed chromosomal fusion must have happened. The sequence at that
> location — along the long arm of chromosome 2 — is truly remarkable. Without
> getting into the technical details, let me just say that special sequences
> occur at the tips of all primate chromosomes. Those sequences generally do
> not occur elsewhere. But they are found right where evolution would have
> predicted, in the middle of our fused second chromosome. The fusion that
> occurred as we evolved from the apes has left its DNA imprint here. It is
> very difficult to understand this observation without postulating a common
> ancestor.
>
>
>
> Collins also showed in Figure 5.1 how similar the inferred DNA sequences of
> mammalian species with what Darwin had in his 1837 notebook for the tree of
> life. That would have been interesting in an introduction to Origin but
> again not there.
>
>
>
> Ray Comfort has every right to publish an introduction to a public domain
> work but at least it shouldn't be YEC's "greatest hits". It ends with a
> Gospel presentation. I don't believe it's going to be terribly effective and
> it's the tarnishing of the Gospel that I have the greatest concern.
>
>
>
> Rich Blinne
>
> Member ASA
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.65/2503 - Release Date: 11/14/09
> 19:42:00
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 16 19:58:55 2009